The court of the Chief Commissioner of Persons with Disabilities delivered a judgement on 10 March this year directing the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) to appoint a disabled candidate, who had been found unsuitable by it, as Scientist. Chander Kishore Joshi, an M. Tech in Opto-Electronics and Optical Communication from the Indian Institute of Technology,Delhi who applied for the post of Scientist ‘B’ (Electronic Engineering) as a general candidate had been denied appointment by DRDO though the selection board had found him suitable on his own merit despite the disability. Excerpts from the order:

Judgement and Order

Mr. Chander Kishore Joshi, a hearing impaired person, filed a complaint before the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities u/s 59 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights & Full Participation) Act, 1995 against the respondent.

The complainant has done M.Tech in Opto-Electronics and Optical Communication from I.I.T. Delhi. He applied for the post of Scientist ‘B’ (Electronic Engineering) as a general candidate in Defence Research & Development Organization (DRDO) in response to the advertisement in Employment News dated 3-9 March, 2001. None of the posts was reserved for persons with disabilities. He was called for interview by the respondent which was held on 29th August 2001. All his original certificate including the disability certificate were checked and the photocopies thereof were handed over to the officials of the respondent. He informed about his hearing impairment to the Members of Interview Board, who agreed to his request to write the questions in case of need. However, there was no need to write as he could hear the question. The respondent vide their letter dated 21.9.2001 informed him that he had been selected for the post of Scientist ‘B’ and directed him to appear before the Central Standing Medical Board, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. The Chairman of the Medical Board also directed him to appear for medical examination on 19.10.2001. The complainant further stated that he requested the respondent to instruct the medical board to carry out his medical examination as per relaxed medical standard as per Government of India’s letter No. 39016/20/80-Estt. (C) dated 30.12.1980. A copy of his request was also given to the Chairman of the Medical Board in Safadarjung Hospital. But he was examined without relaxed medical standards. After a long wait, vide letter dated 25.4.2002 the respondent, informed him that the Medical Board had found him unfit for appointment to Group ‘A’ technical post of Scientist ‘B’ in DRDO on account of profound hearing loss in both the ears. Consequently, he was denied appointment on account of his physical disability. The complainant, therefore, requested that the respondent be directed to issue him the appointment letter for the post he had been selected by the duly constituted selection board.

In view of the facts stated above and that the job of Scientists in Electronic discipline has been identified for persons with disabilities including for partially deaf persons (serial No. 327 to 331 at page 557 of the list of identified jobs contained in the notification no. 16-25/99-N.I.I. dated 31.5.2001 of Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Government of India), a notice to show cause was served upon the respondent to give his/her version of the case in writing.

The respondent vide letter no. 0158059/RD/ Pers-5 dated 15.7.2002 submitted that all the posts in DRDO are deemed to be ‘Technical Posts’ for the purpose of medical standards as specified in the ‘Medical Regulations’ issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare. No relaxation in medical standards are permissible. Shri C.K. Joshi was selected for the post of Scientist ‘B’ which is Group ‘A’ technical post. He was intimated that his appointment was subject to medical fitness. As the Medical Board had found him unfit for the said post, as per the existing rules, he could not be given appointment.

The representative of the respondent submitted that as per Defence Research & Development Service Rules, 1979 (DRDS Rules) which are statutory, medical standard cannot be relaxed for the Scientists in DRDO as they have to work in extreme hostile environment. Strict medical standards have been prescribed keeping in view the interest of the country. As per para 11(3) of DRDS Rules, scientists of DRDO are also liable to serve as commissioned officers in the Armed Forces. Therefore, a disabled person would not be able to perform the duties of a Scientist in DRDO efficiently. Further, as per Civil Services Examination Rules, a person could be fit for both technical as well as non-technical job if the deafness is upto 30 db in speech frequencies of 1000-4000.

The respondent constituted an expert committee vide Ministry of Defence letter No. DOP/03/35001/PHP/M1745/DR&D dated 9.5.2003 comprising representatives from DRDO, CSIR Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Ali Yavar Jung National Institute for Hearing Handicapped, Mumbai, National Institute of Orthopaedically Handicapped, Kolkata, National Institute for the Visually handicapped, Dehradun.

With due consideration and respect to the expertise of the Scientists of DRDO and other organizations who examined the issue of suitability of persons with disabilities particularly the complainant, we observe that the hostile conditions that the DRDS Scientists may be expected to encounter would be relevant to orthopaedically handicapped and the visually impaired persons. A partially deafpersons who is physically fit would be able to take on all those adverse conditions as any other non-disabled person.

In the light of the above discussions, we advise DRDO not to deny the benefit of reservation to persons with disabilities under Section 33 of the Act as per the identification done by the Government under Section 32 of the Act. The respondent is also advised to appoint the complainant as Scientist ‘B” as the duly constituted Selection Board has found him suitable on his own merit despite his disability. In our view denying him the appointment of an identified post merely on the ground of his disability will defeat the very intent and purpose of the Persons with Disabilities Act., 1995.

Sd/-

(DR. UMA TULI)

CHIEF COMMISSIONER

FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES