The Chhattisgarh High Court has reinstated a visually impaired teacher at a government school, ordering full back pay and emphasizing that a job secured through the disability quota cannot be revoked based on recommendations from an internal committee. The court’s decision favored another teacher with similar visual impairments, annulling a notice issued by the school education department that questioned their eligibility.

This situation arose after a departmental committee deemed only candidates with ‘One Arm Affected’ (OA) and ‘Hard of Hearing’ (HH) disabilities as appropriate for the role of Physical Education teacher. Both teachers, who are visually impaired, were called to justify why their appointments should not be terminated. However, the court determined that authorities cannot impose new eligibility criteria after the recruitment process has concluded and positions have been filled.

Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi presided over the case involving Shiv Shankar Sahu and Neel Kumari, both of whom were appointed as Physical Education teachers under the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) reservation quota. They challenged the show-cause notices issued in January 2023, which questioned their qualifications, and Kumari also contested the cancellation of her appointment.

The court stated, “The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is a significant piece of social welfare legislation aimed at ensuring equality, dignity, participation, and non-discrimination for individuals with disabilities. Any interpretation that limits employment opportunities under this Act must be clearly supported by statutory authority. In the absence of such authority, executive directives or committee recommendations cannot undermine the Act’s intent,” during its ruling on July 3.

The case originated from a recruitment advertisement published on March 9, 2019, by the Directorate of Public Instructions in Raipur, which invited applications for various teaching positions, including Physical Education. The advertisement set aside vacancies for individuals with disabilities according to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, without specifying that only certain categories of disabilities would be eligible for the Physical Education role.

Both teachers, each with a 40 percent visual impairment, applied under the disability quota and successfully completed the selection process. After verifying their educational qualifications and disability documentation, they were appointed as Physical Education teachers on August 24, 2021, and served without any complaints regarding their performance.

However, nearly two years later, on January 19, 2023, the joint director of the education division in Bilaspur issued show-cause notices to both teachers. While Sahu quickly sought intervention from the high court, Kumari provided a detailed response to the notice. Nevertheless, despite her explanation, authorities canceled her appointment on February 6, 2023, prompting her to challenge both the notice and the termination order.

In support of its decision, the state argued that the committee established by the Directorate of Public Instructions had determined that only candidates with OA and HH disabilities were suitable for the position. The high court, however, pointed out that the state had not provided any statutory rule, notification, or order under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, that deemed individuals with visual impairments ineligible for teaching positions in physical education.

Justice Chandravanshi concluded that the committee’s report was merely an administrative suggestion and lacked legal standing. The court asserted that such recommendations from an executive body cannot override the rights conferred by a parliamentary law.

The court further noted that a 2014 government circular encouraged the expansion of employment opportunities for persons with disabilities and did not authorize departments to limit or reduce the categories covered by the reservation policy.

In a decisive ruling, the high court granted both petitions, overturning the show-cause notices issued on January 19, 2023. In Kumari’s case, the court invalidated the termination order from February 6, 2023, and ordered the state to reinstate her within 30 days of receiving the certified judgment. Since Sahu remained employed during the legal proceedings, the court also annulled the notice issued to him.

Vineet Upadhyay serves as an Assistant Editor at The Indian Express, where he oversees specialized reporting on the Indian judicial system.

Vineet’s extensive background includes a focus on clarifying complex legal rulings from the Supreme Court of India, various High Courts, and District Courts. His reporting encompasses a wide array of legal topics, including:

• Constitutional and Civil Rights: Highlighting landmark decisions related to privacy, equality, and state accountability.
• Criminal Justice and Enforcement: In-depth coverage of significant cases involving agencies such as the Enforcement Directorate (ED), NIA, and POCSO.
• Consumer Rights and Environmental Law: Authoritative articles on issues like medical negligence compensation, environmental protections, and labor rights.

With over a decade of professional experience, Vineet previously worked as a Principal Correspondent and Legal Reporter for The Times of India and held key positions at The New Indian Express, reporting from vital legal centers, including Delhi and Uttarakhand.