The case involved a visually impaired candidate who had applied for the position of Assistant under the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities category for a recruitment drive conducted by the Railway Recruitment Cell (RRC). The applicant, who is 100% visually impaired, had applied for the post after the RRC issued Notification 01/2019, inviting applications for various positions, including that of an Assistant. While filling out the application online with the help of an assistant at an internet café, the applicant’s date of birth was erroneously entered as 10 January 1992 instead of the correct date, 10 January 1993.

 

 

Despite this error being an unintentional mistake during the online registration process, the applicant’s application was eventually rejected. The Railway Recruitment Cell informed the candidate that the application could not be amended after the deadline, even though the applicant had taken steps to rectify the mistake by submitting an updated Aadhar card with the correct date of birth. The refusal to accept the updated document led the applicant to file a writ petition seeking redress.

The case brings to light the issue of administrative inflexibility when dealing with candidates with disabilities, particularly those with 100% visual impairment. The Court’s judgment emphasized the need for reasonable accommodation and the proactive role that the authorities must play in ensuring equal opportunities for persons with disabilities. The applicant’s eligibility was not in dispute, as she had provided a valid disability certificate and was within the age limit for the position. However, the rigid enforcement of procedural deadlines, without any regard for the challenges faced by persons with disabilities, raised concerns.

The Court criticized the respondents for their failure to consider the applicant’s disability and the challenges it posed in filling out the application correctly. The Court also noted that the applicant had made efforts to correct the error in a timely manner, and there was no evidence of intentional wrongdoing. The respondents' refusal to accommodate the applicant's situation was deemed oppressive and contrary to the spirit of the law.

This ruling serves as a reminder that the provisions for persons with disabilities are not just legal obligations but must be applied with empathy and flexibility. It reinforces the need for authorities to actively facilitate the inclusion of disabled candidates in the workforce, ensuring that they are not excluded due to administrative technicalities that do not account for their specific needs.