IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 22.12.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR WRIT PETITION NO.17048 OF 2008 and M.P.No.2 of 2008 1.B.Jayaraman, 2.P.Chinnadurai, 3.K.Muthumanivannan. ... Petitioners vs. 1. The Special State Commissioner for Rehabilitation of Disabled, No.15/1, Model School Road, Thousand Lights, Chennai-600 006. 2. The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Social Welfare Department and Nutritious Meal Scheme Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 3. The Secretary, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 4. Director of School Education, DPI Complex, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-6. 5. College Students and Graduates Association of Blind, No.58, Thakkar Baba Vidyalaya, Venkatanarayana Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017, Represented by its Founder-Secretary. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. Assistant Director, Office of the Employment and Training, Santhome High Road, Santhome, Chennai-600 004. 7. District Employment Officer, Special Office for Disabled, Santhome High Road, Santhome, Chennai-600 004. ... Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent in G.O.(Standing) No.232 Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Scheme (Sa.Na.9) Department dated 3.12.2007 and of the third respondent in G.O.(Standing) No.114 School Education (Va.Sa.2) Department dated 30.5.2008 so far as (para 4) is concerned and quash the same and direct the respondents 2 and 3 to include visually handicapped graduates/postgraduates in Commerce, Economics, Music, Political Science and other subjects with required qualification for recruitment of teachers post in High School and Higher Secondary School in proportionate to their numbers apart from History and Tamil. For Petitioners : M/s.Kovi Ramalingam For Respondents : Mr.V.Manoharan, Government Advocate for R1 to R4, 6 and 7 : No appearance for R5 O R D E R Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent in G.O. (Standing) No.232 Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Scheme (Sa.Na.9) Department dated 3.12.2007 and of the third respondent in G.O.(Standing) No.114 School Education (Va.Sa.2) Department dated 30.5.2008 so far as (para 4) is concerned and quash the same and direct the respondents 2 and 3 to include visually handicapped graduates/post graduates in Commerce, Economics, Music, Political Science and other subjects with required qualification for recruitment of teachers post in High School and Higher Secondary School in proportionate to their numbers apart from History and Tamil. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Petitioners three in number visually handicapped postgraduates are before this Court to redress their grievance with regard to non consideration of their claim for employment. The first petitioner Thiru B.Jayaraman, holds Master Degree in Commerce (M.Com.), Bachelor Degree in Education(B.Ed.) and M.Phil. The second petitioner Thiru P.Chinnadurai, holds Master Degree in Commerce (M.Com.), Bachelor Degree in Education (B.Ed.) and M.Phil. The third petitioner Thiru K.Muthumanivannan, holds Master Degree in Commerce (M.Com.) and Master Degree in Education(M.Ed.). They are enrolled with Employment Exchange under the Special Category. According to the petitioners, the fifth respondent, College Students and Graduate Association of Blind, T.Nagar, Chennai espouses the cause of blind persons. From time to time, this Association has been approaching the Government, School Education Authorities and the Social Welfare Department, Government of Tamilnadu to consider the claim for suitable appointment in respect of the visually handicapped persons. Consequent to the request made by the fifth respondent Association, it appears the Government has been issuing Special Government Orders for the benefit of visually handicapped persons in the matter of employment as teachers in High Schools and Higher Secondary Schools. It is pointed out by the petitioners that under G.O.(Standing) No.48 Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Scheme Department dated 5.4.2005, 100 visually handicapped graduates and postgraduates were appointed as teachers in the following manner:- Tamil : 50 teachers English : 50 teachers As per G.O.Ms.No.733 Education, Science and Technology (M1) Department dated 29.8.1994, 30 visually handicapped graduates/postgraduates were appointed in the subject Tamil and History. As per G.O.Ms.No.232 Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Scheme Department dated 3.12.2007, based on the recommendation of the Special State Commissioner for Rehabilitation for Disabled, 200 visually handicapped graduates/postgraduates blind teachers were appointed. Of which 100 were appointed in the subject Tamil and 100 were appointed in the subject History. The G.O.Ms.No.232 dated 3.12.2007 reads as follows:- "nkw;fhQqk; fUj;JU murhy; ftdkhf ghprPypf;fg;gl;L. ghh;itaw;w fy;Y}hp khzth;fs; kw;Wk; gl;ljhhp r';fj;jpdh; cah;epiyg; gs;spfs; kw;Wk; nky;epiyg; gs;spfspy; jkpH; kw;Wk; tuyhW ghl';fis fw;gpf;f ntiytha;g;g [ mYtyf';fspy; gjpt[ bra;J fhj;jpUf;Fk; ghh;itaw;wth;fisf; bfhz;L 100 jkpH; kw;Wk; 100 tuyhW Mrphpah; gzpapl';fis njh;t[ thhpaj;jpd; K:yk; epug;g rpwg;g[ mDkjp mspf;f muR ,irtspf;fpwJ/" https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Realising that the graduates and the postgraduates in Economics, Commerce, Political Science, English, Music, Computer Science, etc., are not being considered in spite of repeated representations and requests from the fifth respondent Association and also from the individual concerned, the petitioners have filed the writ petition. 3. It is pointed out by the petitioners that the first respondent Special State Commissioner for Rehabilitation for Disabled in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.12108/Ck.3-1/2007 dated 28.2.2008 has addressed a letter to the Assistant Director, Employment Exchange, Chennai-4 and the District Employment Exchange Officer, Employment Exchange for Disabled, Chennai-4 to give the list of visually handicapped persons who are qualified in other subjects other than Tamil and History so as to forward his recommendation to the Government for employment. The first petitioner has also made a similar request to the first respondent Special State Commissioner to consider their claim for suitable employment. The first respondent recommended the claim of the petitioners in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.12108/Ck.3-1/2007 dated 25.3.2008 addressed it to the Secretary to the Government, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Scheme Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9 and reads as follows:- "ghh;it 1?y; fhQqk; murhizapy;. cah;epiy kw;Wk; nky;epiyg; gs;spfspy; jkpH;. tuyhW ghlg;gphpt[fspy;. ntiyf;fhf ntiy tha;g;g [ mYtyfj;jpy; gjpt[ bra;J fhj;jpUf;Fk; jFjpa[ila ghh;itaw;nwhiuf; bfhz;L jyh 100 ,l';fs; tPjk; 200 Mrphpah; gzpapl';fs; epug;g Miz btspaplg;gl;lJ/ Mdhy;. jkpH;. tuyhW kl;Lkpd;wp ,ju ghlg;gphpt[fspYk; KJfiyg; gl;lk; bgw;W KJepiy gl;ljhhp Mrphpah; gjtpf;F jFjp bgw;Ws;s ghh;itaw;nwhh; gyUk; ntiy tha;g;gf';fspy; ntiyf;fhf gjpt[ bra;J fhj;jpUg;gjhy; nkw;fz;l murhizapd;fPH; ,ju ghlg; gphpt[fspy; KJfiyg; gl;lk; bgw;wth;fisa[k; nrh;j;J Mrphpah; gzpaplk; tH';FkhW gy;ntW ghh;itaw;w egh;fs; nfhhpf;if tpLj;Js;sdh;/ mt;thW nfhhpf;if Vw;ff;Toajhf ,Ug;gjhy;. nkw;go murhizapy; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;s jkpH; kw;Wk; tuyhW Mfpa ghlg;gphpt[fspy; gapd;wth;fSf;F kl;Lkpd;wp ,ju ghlg;gphpt[fspy; (bghUshjhuk;. tzpftpay;. murpay; mwptpay;. M';fpyk;) KJfiy gl;ljhhp Mrphpah; gzpf;F jFjp bgw;w ghh;itaw;wth;fisf; bfhz;Lk; gzpapl';fs; epug;gpLk; tifapy; murhiz tH';Fk;go nfl;Lf; bfhs;fpnwd;/" This recommendation was made, realising that in G.O.Ms.No.232 dated 3.2.2007 visually handicapped persons with necessary qualifications are appointed only in the subject of Tamil and History denying such opportunity to others because they hold degrees in other subjects. The claims of visually challenged persons having valid qualification https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in other subjects were totally ignored. The claims of the petitioners and similarly placed persons were recommended by the Special State Commissioner for the Government for appropriate action. Based on this recommendation, the Deputy Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department addressed a letter to the Director of School Education on 29.4.2008 and the gist of recommendations reads as follows:- "ghh;it 1?y; fhQqk; murhizapy;. (efy; ,izf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ) cah;epiy kw;Wk; nky;epiyg; gs;spfspy; jkpH;. tuyhW ghl';fis fw;gpf;f ntiytha;g;g[ mYtyf';fspy; gjpt[ bra;J fhj;jpUf;Fk; ghh;itaw;wth;fisf; bfhz;L 100 jkpH; kw;Wk; 100 tuyhW Mrphpah; gzpapl';fis. 1/6/2008 Kjy; Mrphpah; njh;t[ thhpaj;jpd; K:yk; epug;g rpwg;g[ mDkjp mspf;f ,irgspf;fg;gl;lJ/ 2/ nkYk;. murhiz vz; 733. rK:f eyk; kw;Wk; rj;Jzt[ jpl;lj;Jiw ehs; 29/8/1994?d;go. 1994?y; 30 egh;fSf;Fk; (jkpH;. tuyhW. M';fpyk; ghl';fspy; kl;Lk;) 2005?y; 100 egh;fSf;F (jkpH; 50 tuyhW 50) Mrphpah; gzpapl';fs; epug;g Mizaplg;gl;Ls;sJ/ 3/ ghh;it ,uz;oy; cs;s CdKw;nwhUf;fhd khepy Mizahpd; fojj;jpy; (efy; ,izf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ) nkw;fz;l murhizapd; fPH; ,ju ghlg; gphpt[fspy; (bghUshjhuk;. tzpftpay;. murpay;. M';fpyk;) KJfiyg; gl;lk; bgw;wth;fisa[k; nrh;j;J Mrphpah; gzpaplk; tH';FkhW ghh;itaw;w egh;fs; nfhhpf;if tpLj;jjd; nghpy;. mth;fisf; bfhz;Lk; gzpaplk; epug;gpLk; tifapy; murhiz tH';Fk;go nfl;Lf; bfhz;Ls;shh;/ 4/ ,f;fUj;JU Fwpj;J j';fspd; Fwpg;ghd fUj;JUf;fis bgWkhW gs;spf; fy;tpj;Jiw Mnyhrid tH';fpa[s;sjhy;. ,f;fUj;JUtpd; kPJ j';fspd; Fwpg;ghd fUj;JUf;fis muRf;F cld; mDg;g[k;go nfl;Lf; bfhs;sg;gzpf;fg;gl;Ls;nsd;/" 4. While the above recommendation was under consideration, to the shock and surprise of the petitioners, the Government issued another G.O.Ms.No.114 School Education (Va.Sa.2) Department dated 30.5.2008 whereby for the year 2008-2009, 200 posts are recommended for the visually challenged persons in the subject of Tamil and History. Therefore, the petitioners have come before this Court to quash the G.O.Ms.No.232 dated 3.12.2007 and G.O.Ms.No.114 dated 30.5.2008 stating that there is a total discrimination insofar as the visually challenged persons who are qualified in subjects other than Tamil and History. 5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Government, while considering the case of visually challenged persons cannot discriminate the graduates and postgraduates who are qualified and competent to be appointed as teachers in subjects other than Tamil and History. This discrimination is arbitrary and the two https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ G.Os. issued granting exclusive benefits to the graduates and postgraduates of Tamil and History as a special case under the visually challenged persons category, should not be allowed as the very object of the Government is to provide employment to visually challenged persons based on their educational qualification. The further categorization in the subject of Tamil and History creates an artificial wedge in the matter of employment denying the claims of hundreds of persons like petitioners. There is no rational in the G.Os. The exclusive reservation given for visually challenged persons to the subject of Tamil and History has deprived the right to life and livelihood of the petitioners and the similarly placed graduates and postgraduates, who are otherwise qualified in subjects like, Commerce, Economics, Maths, Political Science, Music, English, etc. 6. In many cases, it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that most of the visually challenged persons are languishing without employment for more than a decade, whereas visually challenged persons in Tamil and History are given preferential treatment. The above said plea of the petitioners is justified and the benefits are given to visually challenged persons by creating an artificial class based on their educational qualification. The Government is not alive to the need of the visually challenged persons who are qualified in other subjects. There is no rational in the discrimination made in the two G.Os., which are challenged. This will amount to deprivation of opportunity to a class of disabled who have attempted to overcome their disability, but have been sidelined by the State by creating an artificial class based on subject. The object of the State should be to uplift the visually challenged persons as one class, if they have the necessary educational requirement by providing equal opportunity in employment. The division and denial of opportunity does not promote the cause of the States obligation to uplift the disadvantaged class of people. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners also pointed out before this Court the publication made in the Newspaper of 5th August, 2009 (Dinakaran) where it published that the Government has proposed to fill up 6500 teachers post including graduates as well as postgraduates teachers in High School and Higher Secondary School. 8. In such a situation, the claim of the petitioners and the similarly placed persons who are qualified in subjects other than History and Tamil should be considered keeping in line with the recommendation made by the Special State Commissioner for Rehabilitation and for Disabled and the recommendation of the Secretary to Government Social Welfare Department. This will set right the anomaly that has been rightly pointed and agitated by the petitioners. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9. The writ petitioners have challenged the two impugned G.Os., stating that it is discriminatory and arbitrary. Insofar as G.O.Ms.No.114 dated 30.5.2008 is concerned, the Government has referred to the recommendation of the Director of School Education for allotment of 200 posts, 100 in Tamil and 100 in History for visually challenged persons. The G.O.Ms.No.114 does not state that such reservation has been considered and 200 posts have been earmarked for visually challenged persons in the subject of Tamil and History. The Government Order is vague to that extent. Therefore, it is not clear whether visually challenged persons are entitled to the 200 posts under G.O.Ms.No.114 dated 30.5.2008. On the basis of such vague G.O., this Court is not inclined to hold that 200 posts have been granted to the visually challenged persons in the subject of Tamil and History. The Government can still consider allocation of certain number of posts to visually challenged persons on all subjects as applicable even in G.O.Ms.No.114 dated 30.5.2008. This Court is, therefore, not inclined at present to go into that aspect of the case as the cause of the visually challenged persons, the petitioners herein and similarly placed persons can be better addressed, if the Government is directed to take a pragmatic view of the claims of the petitioners and the similarly placed persons keeping in mind the recommendation made by the first respondent Special State Commissioner and the Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department and grant the benefits to graduates/postgraduates in other subjects like Maths, Economics, Commerce, Political Science, Computer Science, Music, etc., for appointment to the post of graduate/postgraduate teachers in High School and Higher Secondary School as applicable. 10. One other aspect that the Government has also to consider is the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and the import of such legislation to further the cause of the visually challenged persons who are entitled to the benefit of the above said Act. 11. Since the Government has already indicated that sizable number of posts nearing about 6500 teachers will be filled up shortly in the publication made on 5th August, 2009 as has been pointed out by the petitioners, the Secretary to Government, School Education Department, the third respondent herein, is directed to consider this issue and pass appropriate orders considering the claim of the petitioners and the similarly placed persons as indicated above. Such exercise shall be completed preferably on or before 26th February, 2010. 12. By order dated 28.7.2008, this Court directed the respondents authorities to keep 3 posts of Postgraduate Assistant in Commerce as vacant until further orders of this Court. The third https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent Secretary to Government School Education Department and the fourth respondent Director of School Education are directed to consider the claim of the three petitioners herein independent of the direction already issued by this Court so as to consider their case for appointment as postgraduates Assistant in Commerce, subject to satisfying other eligibility criteria under the visually challenged category. The three petitioners are also granted liberty to approach the Court for any appropriate relief if they are otherwise aggrieved, if their case is not considered in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is ordered as above. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ts To 1. The Special State Commissioner for Rehabilitation of Disabled, No.15/1, Model School Road, Thousand Lights, Chennai-600 006. 2. The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Social Welfare Department and Nutritious Meal Scheme Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 3. The Secretary, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 4. The Director of School Education, DPI Complex, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-6. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. The Assistant Director, Office of the Employment and Training, Santhome High Road, Santhome, Chennai-600 004. 6. The District Employment Officer, Special Office for Disabled, Santhome High Road, Santhome, Chennai-600 004. + One cc to Govt., Pleader, CC SR 71150 + One cc to Mr.Kovai Ramalingam, CC SR 70625 Order in W.P.No.17048 of 2008 MBS (CO) RH (19.1.10) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/