AMITA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 565 · Decided: 11-08-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

AM!TA 
V. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
AUGUST II, 2005 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL, D.M. DHARMADHIKARI AND 
TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Articles 14 and 16-Banking Services Recruit-_ 
ment Board inviting applications for post of Probationary Officers stipulating 
eligibility conditions of a graduate and age limit-Rejection of application 
by the Board of a visually . impaired applicant on the ground that the posts 
were riot identified for visually handicapped candidates-On a Writ Petition 
under Article 32 of the Constitution-Held, the action of the Board in 
rejecting the application of a usually impaired applicant, who satisfied the 
eligibility conditions, was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the 
Constitution -
Jn view of subsequent Government Notification ident!fYing the 
post of Probationary Officers as suitable for usually impaired persons, the 
writ petition is disposed of with observations. 
Banking Services Recruitment Board issued a newspaper 
advertisement inviting applications for the post of Probationary Officers 
in a Public Sector Bank. According to the advertisement, the applicants 
should be a graduate from a recognised University and within a prescribed 
age limit. Writ Petitioner, who satisfied both the conditions, submitted 
her application but it was rejected by the Board on the ground that she 
is a visually impaired lady. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition before the 
Court under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the action of the 
respondents. 
The writ petitioner contended that the action of the Board in rejecting 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
the application was err~neous since the advertisement inviting applications 
stipulated only the qualification of graduation and age limit: and hence, 
G 
the denial of opportunity to her on the ground of being a visually impaired 
lady violated Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 
The respondents contended that the application of the writ petitioner 
was rejected on the ground that the post of Probationary Officer was not 
H 
565 
566 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
earmarked for visually impaired persons as per the Government of India 
Notifications; that the duties of a Probationary Officer of a Bank are very 
exhaustive, complex and difficult requiring greater alertness, presence of 
mind and maximum utilisation of the physic:al and mental faculties of a 
person; and that, owing to nature of various duties of a Probationary 
B 
officer in a Bank, a person of visual deficiency would not prove to be 
effective,and likely to commit losses to the banking institutions as well as 
public money. 
Disposing of the Writ Petition, the Court 
C 
HELD: I.I. The writ petitioner has satisfied the two conditions viz. 
graduation degree and age limit. Therefore, there is no reason for refusal 
to give such opportunity to the writ petitioner to write the examination 
by the Board. The fact of the grant of admit card to the writ petitioner 
by the Board in another recruitment would clearly show that the writ 
D 
petitioner could not be thrown out on the ground that she was visually 
impaired lady. The order passed by the Board rejecting the application 
of the writ petitioner was erroneous, illegal and invalid in law and therefore 
cannot be sustained. (569-D, E) 
E 
F 
G 
H 
National Federation of Blind v. Union Public Service Commission & 
Ors., (1993) 2 SCC 411, relied on. 
1.2. Article 14 of the Co,nstitution of India was infringed for denial 
of permission to the writ petitioner to sit and write the examination. 
There is discrimination by the respondents between the writ petitioner 
and persons who are substantially in similar circumstances or conditions. 
Therefore, the rejection of the application by the respondents was not on 
reasonable grounds and was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the 
Constitution which is a fundamental right of every citizen to be treated 
equally. [572-D, G] 
1.3. The primary object, which is guaranteed by Article 16(1) of the 
Constitution, is equality of opportunity and that was violated by the 
Board by debarring the writ petitioner from appearing in the examination 
on the mere fact of disability whi_s:h was not mentioned in the advertisement 
and which according to the writ petitioner is not an impediment for the 
post. The writ petitioner, without asking for any favour, had applied for 
AMITA v. U.O.l. [CHATTERJEE, J.] 
567 
writing the examination for selection

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.