New Delhi, Oct 29 (IANS) The Delhi High Court has ruled that rejecting the candidature of a physically disabled person for compassionate appointment on the ground of "no vacancy" runs contrary to the mandate of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.  A bench of Justices Madhu Jain and Navin Chawla dismissed a plea filed by the Commissioner of Police and others against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) that had directed reconsideration of a disabled candidate’s case for compassionate appointment in the Delhi Police. 

The respondent, Amit Kumar, who is 75 per cent physically disabled and belongs to a Scheduled Caste community, had sought a compassionate appointment after his father, a Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) employee, died while in service in 2013.  His application was rejected by the Delhi Police, citing a lack of vacancies for physically challenged candidates in the MTS cadre. In its decision, the Delhi High Court came down heavily on the authorities and observed that the repeated rejections on the same ground "defeat the very purpose of the compassionate appointment scheme", which is meant to provide "immediate succour to the bereaved family". 

The Justice Jain-headed bench said: "Rejection of his candidature on the sole ground that there was no vacancy for physically disabled persons reflects a lack of awareness and sensitivity towards the principles of reasonable accommodation and inclusion."  It added that such an action "cannot withstand the test of fairness" and "is antithetical to the principles of justice, equity and good conscience that animate our constitutional framework".  The Delhi High Court said that the decision "defeats the provisions of the RPwD Act", noting that the Act ensures equality, dignity, and non-discrimination for persons with disabilities and mandates the government to provide reasonable accommodation in employment. 

Referring to Supreme Court judgements, the bench observed that the RPwD Act has acquired the status of a "super statute" containing the ingredients of a quasi-constitutional law. It ruled that "reasonable accommodation is not a discretionary measure, but a fundamental right integral to achieving substantive equality for persons with disabilities forming part of the right to dignity as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India".  The Delhi High Court found that while the Delhi Police’s Standing Orders provided age relaxation for physically handicapped dependents, "the mandate of the RPwD Act cannot be satisfied merely by giving this relaxation in age". 

"The reasonable accommodation mentioned therein has to extend to reservation and special consideration of such individuals, especially in matters of compassionate appointment," it said. Holding that the Delhi Police’s approach in compassionate appointment was "arbitrary and devoid of the compassion that the law mandates in such cases", the Justice Jain-headed bench directed the Screening Committee to reconsider Amit Kumar’s case afresh and issue necessary orders within eight weeks. "The Screening Committee of the petitioners (Delhi Police) is directed to reconsider the case of the respondent for compassionate appointment. Necessary orders in this regard shall be issued by the petitioners within a period of 8 weeks," it ordered.