NDLI: V. Surendra Mohan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	percentage of disability TNPSC Persons with Disabilities Act 1995 Civil judge recruitment 40%-50%
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Constitution of India Persons with Disabilities (equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (1 of 1996)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 – Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPC) received a requisition from the State Government for 162 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) – TNPC proposed to notify the percentage of disability as 40%-50% for partially blind and partially deaf – State Government by order dated 08.08.2014 communicated the decision to go ahead with the percentage of disability as 40%-50% for partially blind and partially deaf with the consultation of the High Court – Pursuant thereto, TNPC issued notification inviting applications for direct recruitment – Appellant appeared in selection process under partially blind category – Disability Certificate issued to the appellant mentioned his disability as 70% – Written examination was conducted – Name of the appellant was not included in the list of successful candidates – Writ petition filed by the appellant – High Court held that as per government order dated 08.08.2014 and Notification issued by TNPC partially blind with 40%-50% disability were only eligible to participate in the selection process – On appeal, held: The advertisement-notification clearly provided that post of Civil Judge was identified as suitable for partially deaf/partially blind/ortho categories of differently abled persons with 40%-50% disability – Certificate of disability submitted by the appellant mentioned appellant having disability of 70%, which made him ineligible for the post of Civil Judge advertised by notification, since the disability required for the post was only 40%-50% – High Court did not commit any error in dismissing the Writ petition filed by the appellant – Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007.Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 – Condition of 40%-50% disability for partially blind and partially deaf categories of disabled persons in a notification for recruitment of Civil Judges (Junior Division) issued by the Public Service Commission – Validity of – Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPC) issued notification for the 162 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and announced 40%-50% disability for partially blind and partially deaf categories of disabled persons – Held: Judicial Service being part of Public Service, the State in consultation with the High court is fully empowered to lay down the eligibilities for selection on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) – The condition of having 40%-50% disability was prescribed by the Public Service Commission as per the Government Order issued by the State after consultation with the High Court – There was consensus in the view of State Government, Public Service Commission and the High Court that partially blind and partially deaf persons suffering with disability be allowed to participate in the recruitment, who has disability of 40%-50% – Thus, condition of 40%-50% disability for partially blind and partially deaf categories of disabled persons cannot be said to be invalid – Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007. Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 – s.33 – Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPC) issued notification for 162 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and announced 40%-50% disability for partially blind and partially deaf for the selection in question – Appellant contended that Act, 1995 does not provide for any such restriction that the eligibility is of only those who suffer from disability of 40%-50% – Held: s.33 of the Act, 1995 requires that every appropriate Government shall appoint in every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less than three percent for persons or class of persons with disability of which one percent each shall be reserved for persons suffering from blindness or low vision – The present is not a case where the respondent has not reserved the post for partial disability as required by s.33 of the Act, 1995 – Thus, requirement of reservation as mandated by s.33 is clearly fulfilled – The State, which is appointing authority of Public Service in consultation with the High Court with reference to post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) can very well lay down the essential eligibilities and requirement for the post – When the State, High Court and Public Service Commission are of the view that disability, which is suitable for appointment on the post of Civil Judge should be between 40%-50%, the said prescription does not violate any statutory provision nor contravene any of the provisions of the Act, 1995 – It is well within the power of appointing authority to prescribe eligibility looking to the nature of the job, which is to be performed by holder of a post. Constitution of India – Arts. 154, 233, 234, 235 and Entry 41 List II of the Seventh Schedule – State Government, if competent to take any executive decision with regard to recruitment on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Held: Judicial Service being Public service is included in Entry 41 List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution – State having competence to legislate on Entry 41, i.e. State public Services; State Public Service Commission, it has also executive power under Art. 154 of the Constitution of India – Thus, the State Government is fully competent to take any executive decision with regard to recruitment on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), supplementing the Statutory Rules, 2007 – Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan
Neutral Citation	2019 INSC 75
Petitioner	V. Surendra Mohan
Respondent	State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
SCR	[2019] 1 S.C.R. 954
Judgement Date	2019-01-22
Case Number	83

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

V. Surendra Mohan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Siddaraju Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Surendra Narain Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.

Rekha Sharma Vs. The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr.

The State of Kerala & Ors. Vs. Leesamma Joseph

Mohan Raj Vs. Surendra Kumar Taparia & Ors.

Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Reserve Bank of India & Ors. Vs. A.k. Nair & Ors.

Union of India Vs. Sanjay Kumar Jain

M.p. Ram Mohan Raja Vs. Sta Te of Tamil Nadu and Ors

V. Surendra Mohan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

V. Surendra Mohan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Siddaraju Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Surendra Narain Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.

Rekha Sharma Vs. The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr.

The State of Kerala & Ors. Vs. Leesamma Joseph

Mohan Raj Vs. Surendra Kumar Taparia & Ors.

Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Reserve Bank of India & Ors. Vs. A.k. Nair & Ors.

Union of India Vs. Sanjay Kumar Jain

M.p. Ram Mohan Raja Vs. Sta Te of Tamil Nadu and Ors

V. Surendra Mohan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.