Karanti Goyal v. Ministry of Environment Forests Climate Change & Anr.

1. This review petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking review of the order dated February 7, 2023 passed by this Court in the captioned writ petition. The writ petition was filed challenging order dated January 13, 2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA 1078/2015, thereby dismissing the same.

2. In the order dated February 7 2023, this Court while dismissing the writ petition has stated in paragraphs 19 and 20 as under:

19. Insofar as the submission related to Rules 18 and 19 of the Rules of 2014 are concerned, the same shall not come to the aid of the petitioner. It is the conceded case of the petitioner that he was examined by a special Medical Board comprising of experts in the area for conducting the medical examination. Even the proviso to Rule 19 which as under:- “Provided further that the physically disabled candidates shall also be required to meet special eligibility criteria in terms of physical requirements / functional classification (abilities/disabilities) consistent with requirements of the identified service/post as may be prescribed by its cadre controlling authority.” The above contemplates that, a physically disabled candidate shall also be required to meet special eligibility criteria in terms of physical requirement / functional classification (abilities/disabilities) consistent with requirements of the identified service/post as may be prescribed by its Cadre Controlling Authority. Consequently, the walking test of completing 25 kilometers within four hours, in the presence the said proviso would be an obligatory stipulation and need to be fulfilled / adhered to. In fact, the stand of the REVIEW PET. 215/2023 in W.P.(C) 4638/2021 Page 3 respondents as submitted by the learned counsel is that, such a requirement is in the interest of the candidate. The submission that since the service concerned is IFoS, every eventuality which an officer may encounter in a forest has been perceived to stipulate such a condition, is appealing. Insofar as the reliance placed by Mr. Sinha on the provision of Section 2(t) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 is concerned, the same is without merit in view of the provisions of the Rules referred to above. Similarly, the submission made by Mr. Sinha that petitioner could not have been called for the walking test is also without merit in view of Appendix III of the Rules of 2014.

20. In view of the discussion above and considering the fact that examination was of the year 2014, i.e., eight years ago, we are of the view that in the facts of this case, the impugned order of the Tribunal needs no interference. The writ petition being without merit is dismissed. No costs.”

3. It is the contention of Mr. Anurag Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the scheme of the Rules of 2014 is in consonance with the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India and it requires affirmative protection to be granted to persons with disability in the form of relaxation. The purpose of attaching a proviso is to exempt persons with disability from the drills contained in the substantive part of Rule 18, as a person with disability cannot be assumed to possess the same level of physical stature which is applicable to the candidates across boards. Further, the legislative mandate as contained in Rule 18, REVIEW PET. 215/2023 in W.P.(C) 4638/2021 Page 4 understood in the context of disability jurisprudence contemplates a situation where a person with disability cannot be appointed notwithstanding the particular form of the disability which he possesses to the post to be filled up with such person with disability. This aspect manifests that a woman with no disability is required to fulfil the walking test of 14 kilometers in four hours, while a person with disability having low vision is required to fulfil the test of 25 kilometers in four hours. In a neutral social order, gender and the ability to walk does not co-relate as such, but the same is sought to be mapped with a visual disability.

4. The doctrine of proportionality warrants the impediment of rights to have a reasonable nexus with object in proportionate measure.

5. His submission is also that Indian Forest Rules, 2014 does not provide for walking test to persons with disability especially the persons with low vision. The requirement to undergo the walking is a general requirement, which is applicable to all the candidates. The issue essentially is as to whether this general requirement of walking test is enforceable or applicable to persons with disability. This Court’s reasoning proceeds on an assumption that in the absence of explicit exclusion accorded to persons with disability that they are being exempted from walking test, the said requirement cannot be effaced in giving effect to this assumption. This Court notes that proviso to Rule 19 requiring special eligibility criteria contemplates an obligatory stipulation in view of said proviso. This according to Mr. Jha is an error apparent on the REVIEW PET. 215/2023 in W.P.(C) 4638/2021 Page 5 face of the order, inasmuch as the fact that requirement to undergo the walking test of completing 24 kilometers within four hours for men is a requirement across the board for men, which has nothing to do with special eligibility criteria referable to proviso to Rule

19.

6. Suffice to state, the submissions made by Mr. Ojha are on the merit of the conclusion drawn by this Court in the order of which review is sought. Surely, that does not make the petition fall within the parameters that need to be satisfied to seek review of the order under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. We do not see any reason to entertain the review petition on the grounds urged by Mr. Ojha. The review is dismissed.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J AUGUST 23, 2023