Judicial Officer has to possess reasonable faculties of hearing, sight and speech, Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of prescription of disability to the extent of 40%-50% for partially blind and partially deaf for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division)..In doing so, the Court has held that the prescription does not contravene any provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 or any other statutory provision..Importantly, the Court also observed that a judicial officer has to possess reasonable faculties of hearing, sight and speech in order to hear cases and write judgments..The judgement was pronounced by Division Bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan and KM Joseph in an appeal against an order passed by the Madras High Court. The appeal was filed by a candidate who had appeared in the selection process for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) under partially blind category..On August 4, 2014, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPC) wrote to the Tamil Nadu State Government as well as the High Court proposing to notify the percentage of disability as 40%-50% for partially blind and partially deaf for selection of 162 Civil Judges (Junior Division). This was done after it received a requisition from the State Government to fill up the same..The said proposal was accepted by the High Court as well as the State Government and TNPC issued a notification/advertisement on August 26, 2014 inviting applications for direct recruitment..The appellant, a practicing Advocate, submitted his application in response to the notification under partially disabled category. In the column “percentage of disability” the appellant mentioned “more than 40%”. The disability certificate issued to the appellant certified his disability as 70%..Once the list of provisionally successful candidates was released by TNPC, the appellant found that his name was not there. Aggrieved, he moved the Madras High Court under writ jurisdiction..As an interim measure, the High Court directed that the appellant be permitted to participate in the next round, i.e. viva-voce. It nonetheless directed that his result would be kept in a sealed envelope, until further orders are passed..The appellant thus appeared in the interview. Later the Commission issued a list of provisionally selected candidates for direct recruitment..Meanwhile, in the same writ petition, the appellant also challenged the Government’s communication to TNPC, giving its consent to the 40%-50% disability prescription for selection as Civil Judge (Junior Division)..Dismissing his objections, the Madras High Court held that the appellant was not eligible in terms of the eligibility prescription as he had 70% disability..The appellant, therefore, filed an appeal before the Supreme Court..He argued before the Supreme Court that the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) has been identified under Section 32 of the Disability Act, 1995, and, therefore, no restriction of disability to the extent of 40%-50% could be imposed..He submitted that since “complete blindness” has been provided as the only exemption under proviso to Section 33 for the post, the appellant who is not completely blind but has 70% disability cannot be said to be ineligible for appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division)..He also argued that neither did the Disability Act, 1995 provide for any such restriction on eligibility nor was any expert committee formed to arrive at the eligibility criteria of disability of 40%- 50%..He stated that the figure of 40%-50% as eligibility for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) was an arbitrary figure which was arrived at without any basis..Defending the decision, High Court stated that eligibility prescription was arrived at after considering the nature of the duties of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) who is required to hear the cases, record the statement of witnesses, read the documents and then decide..While deciding on the question of validity of the eligibility prescription, the Court held that since the appellant had not specifically challenged Clause 4(F) of the advertisement/notification inviting application for the said post as per the prescription, he cannot be allowed to challenge the eligibility prescription of 40%-50% partial blindness..The said Clause stemmed out of a Government order of 2005 which identified the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) as Item No.102 and listed ‘partially blind/ partially deaf/ortho’ as categories of disabled persons suitable for the job..The Court held that the word “partially blind” may be a general concept but where a percentage has been fixed looking at the nature of the job, it cannot be said that all partially blind persons are eligible for the post..Stating that “there must exist a valid classification with a nexus to object sought to be achieved”, the Court observed that partially blind and partially deaf disability of 40%-50% has been pegged to achieve the object of appointing such disabled persons who are able to perform the duties of Civil Judge (Junior Division)..It also relied on the Government Order of 2005 to state that “Work performed by Reading/Writing, Work performed by Hearing/Speaking, Word performed by seeing etc.” have been categorically listed as the physical requirements for discharging the duty of Civil Judge (Junior Division)..These physical requirements for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) have also been incorporated into the statutory Rules such as The Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007, the Court noted..Further referring to Entry 41, List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, which refers to Public Service, the Court stated that the State has executive power under Article 154 of the Constitution of India to take any executive decision with regard to recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division)..It thus iterated that since Judicial service is part of Public Service, the State in consultation with the High Court is fully empowered to lay down the eligibility criteria for selection to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division)..Further stating that “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”, the Court observed,.“A judicial officer in a State has to possess reasonable limit of the faculties of hearing, sight and speech in order to hear cases and write judgments and, therefore, stipulating a limit of 50% disability in hearing impairment or visual impairment as a condition to be eligible for the post is a legitimate restriction i.e. fair, logical and reasonable.”.The eligibility prescription was reasonable, just and fair, the Court held..The condition of having 40%-50% disability as prescribed by the Public Service Commission was in no manner invalid or in contravention to any existing statutory provision, the Court stated..It thus decreed,.“We, thus, do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.“.Read the judgment below.