In a significant ruling reinforcing the rights of persons with disabilities, the Rajasthan High Court imposed a ₹50,000 fine on Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) for unlawfully rejecting the candidature of a visually impaired individual, Mr. Ranjan Tak, despite his high merit. The court emphasized the importance of equality and non-discrimination under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act).
The judgment, delivered by Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Munnuri Laxman, reprimanded ONGC for creating barriers to justice and equality by denying Mr. Tak an opportunity based on unreasonable medical fitness criteria.
Case Background
The case stemmed from ONGC’s recruitment drive for Materials Management Officers under Advertisement No. 3/2018 (R&P). Of the 49 vacancies, 19 were reserved for visually impaired candidates. Mr. Ranjan Tak, a 23-year-old IIT Roorkee graduate with 30% vision impairment, applied as an OBC candidate and secured a place in the merit list with a score of 81.48%. Despite his outstanding performance, ONGC declared him medically unfit due to its requirement for “good binocular vision,” rejecting his appointment.
Aggrieved, Mr. Tak approached the Rajasthan High Court, asserting that the rejection violated his constitutional rights and the provisions of the RPwD Act. The Single Judge ruled in his favor, prompting ONGC to file an appeal before the Division Bench.
Key Legal Issues
1. Right to Equality and Non-Discrimination: Whether denying a visually impaired candidate an opportunity based on medical norms contradicted the RPwD Act.
2. Statutory Provisions under the RPwD Act: Whether a disability below the benchmark of 40% could disqualify a candidate for a post identified as suitable for visually impaired individuals.
3. Human Rights Violations: Whether ONGC’s actions undermined the dignity and rights of persons with disabilities.
Court’s Observations
The court delivered a scathing critique of ONGC’s actions, highlighting the pervasive insensitivity in handling cases of disability. The bench stated:
“It defies all logic and reasoning that though a person suffering from benchmark disability of 40% may be offered appointment against the posts reserved for physically handicapped category, a candidate of the same category with lower degree of disability is treated as medically unfit… Such a candidate cannot be declared medically unfit for the post.”
The court emphasized that once a post is identified as suitable for persons with disabilities, lower degrees of disability should not render a candidate ineligible.
Judgment and Fine
The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge’s order, reiterating that ONGC’s actions violated not only the RPwD Act but also constitutional principles of equality and human dignity. It directed ONGC to pay ₹50,000 as costs to Mr. Tak within two months, describing the rejection as “adding insult to injury.”
The court also underscored the broader implications of the case:
“Denial of appointment to [Mr. Tak] has added insult to injury which must be deprecated. The treatment meted out amounts to rubbing salt into such injury by denying [him] his legitimate and legal right.”
