Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10408 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ram Dulare Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamla Kant Mishra,Varun Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
By means of the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 26.02.2018 passed by the competent authority whereby the claim of the petitioner on the post of Live Stock Extension Officer, special quota of physically challenged person, has been rejected considering the disability certificate submitted by the petitioner, which was issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Mau, U.P.
Challenging the order impugned, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent no.3 has wrongly interpreted the provision of Section 2(b) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. The blindness as described therein refers to a one of the condition from which a person suffers out of three conditions:-
"(i)total absence of sight; or
(ii) visual acuity not exceeding 6/60 or 20/200 (snellen) in the better eye with correcting lenses; or
(iii) limitation of the field of vision subtending an angle of 20 degree or worse;"
As per the certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, the vision of the petitioner is 6/12 in both eyes, which clearly indicates that he was covered by one of the conditions of blindness as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act' 1995.
The submission is that merely because the level of disability from which the petitioner is suffering as mentioned in the certificate is 20%, it cannot be said that the petitioner would not come within the meaning of a person suffering with disability i.e. blindness within the meaning of the Act' 1995. The interpretation given by the competent authority to section 2(t) of the definition of the "person with disability" is on wrong principle.
Dealing with this submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is relevant to note that different types of disability from which, the person may suffer and can seek benefit of the Act' 1995 has been mentioned in Section 2(i) of the Act 1995 which reads as under:-
"disability" means— (I) blindness;
(ii) low vision;
(iii) leprosy-cured;
(iv) hearing impairment;
(v) locomotor disability;
(vi) mental retardation;
(vii) mental illness;"
In so far as the section 2(b), clause (ii) is concerned, the same refers to a visual acuity not exceeding by 6/60 or 20/200 in the better eye with correcting lenses. It has not been described in the certificate provided to the petitioner that he is suffering form vision 6/12, despite using correcting lenses.
Even otherwise, "a person with disability" within the meaning of Act 1995 has been defined under section 2(t) which clearly defines that 'a person with disability' would mean that a person suffers from not less than 40% of any disability defined under the Act, as certified by a medical authority.
In the case of the petitioner, the competent authority namely the Chief Medical Officer, Mau has certified that the petitioner is suffering from 20% visual disability that means he is suffering from defect in vision upto the extent of 20%, which does not include him in the category of "person with disability" defined under the Act.
Even otherwise, this Court is not an expert and is not competent to decide as to whether the petitioner having vision of 6/12 in both eyes would suffer from which grade of disability. No exception can be taken to the certificate given by the Chief Medical Officer giving the grade of disability from which, the petitioner is suffering.
In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the petitioner cannot be said to be covered within the definition of "person with disability" under the Act' 1995 and is not entitled for benefit thereof. No infirmity is found in the order impugned.
The writ petition is dismissed as such.
Order Date - 24.4.2018 Himanshu