Karnataka High Court Supports Decision to Consider Blind Candidate for Teacher Position.
The Karnataka High Court supported the Karnataka State Administration Tribunal’s decision to consider a blind candidate for the position of Primary Teacher. The Court noted that the actions of the State and its agencies must align with established policies. The State and its officials challenged the Tribunal’s ruling, which accepted the application of a blind candidate from a Scheduled Caste and ordered the Department to consider this applicant for the role of Graduate Primary Teacher (Social Studies, teaching Kannada) alongside other candidates with low vision.
The Division Bench, including Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice C M Joshi, stated, “It is hard to understand how blindness would hinder someone from performing the duties of a teacher. History shows many blind individuals who have accomplished remarkable feats, such as Homer, John Milton, Louis Braille, Helen Keller, and Srikanth Bolla, the CEO of Bollant Industries valued at £48 million.” HCGP Saritha Kulkarni represented the Petitioners. The main issue in this case was the reservation benefits for disabled candidates, particularly those with low vision.
The State argued that the reservation for ‘low vision candidates’ is a separate category from that of ‘blind candidates.’ This distinction was overlooked, leading to an apparent error in the Tribunal’s order that warranted the Court’s intervention.
The Bench referred to a Government Notification from July 26, 2011, which categorized individuals with different disabilities and their eligibility for public jobs. The first category includes candidates with blindness, while the second is for those with low vision. Since the Notification specifically mentioned only low vision candidates, the Bench noted, “Thus, the Tribunal rightly relied on the main piece of delegated legislation, the statutory Notification from March 5, 2007, which should take precedence over the less significant 2011 State Notification.”
The Bench rejected HGCP’s argument that a ‘Graduate Primary Teacher’ (Social Studies, teaching Kannada) cannot perform their duties if they are completely blind, even though they meet the educational qualifications. It clarified that for preferential treatment between low vision candidates and those who are completely blind, the latter should be prioritized, as they face greater challenges, provided their blindness does not hinder their ability to perform the job. “The actions of the State and its agencies under Article 12 must align with these established policies,” it stated. The Tribunal did not exclude low vision candidates; instead, it expanded the pool by allowing blind candidates to participate. The Bench emphasized that Courts and Tribunals must tailor relief to meet the needs of law, reason, and justice while dismissing the petition.
Cause Title: State of Karnataka v. Ms. Latha H N [Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC:45381-DB]
Appearance:
Petitioners: HCGP Saritha Kulkarni
