PRADIP KUMAR MAITY versus CHINMOY KUMAR BHUNIA & ORS.

PRADIP KUMAR MAITY versus CHINMOY KUMAR BHUNIA & ORS.

The Disabilities Act, 1995 provides for the possibility (not the mandate) of age relaxation for persons with disabilities, as Section 38 uses 'may', making it directory and not compulsory for states to provide such relaxation. After the Government of West Bengal withdrew the age relaxation by Memo No. 1736(21) GA dated 1.11.1999, and as no legal instrument mandates such relaxation for disabled candidates, the appellant is not entitled to age relaxation despite his disability, even though the state definition of disability must align with the central Act.

Parties
Appellant: Pradip Kumar Maity; Respondent No.1: Chinmoy Kumar Bhunia; Respondents: Others (Respondents)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From Division Bench Judgment of the Calcutta High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Age Relaxation for Persons With Disabilities, Interpretation of 'shall' and 'may' in Statutes, Reservation for Disabled Persons, Constitutional Subordination of State Rules to Central Statutes
Service Law Disability Law Administrative Law Age Relaxation for Persons With Disabilities Interpretation of 'shall' and 'may' in Statutes Reservation for Disabled Persons Constitutional Subordination of State Rules to Central Statutes

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pradip Kumar Maity

Appellant

Chinmoy Kumar Bhunia

Respondent No.1

Others (Respondents)

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From Division Bench Judgment of the Calcutta High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant, being a person with 60% hearing disability, was entitled to age relaxation for appointment as Group 'D' staff under the applicable service rules after the Disabilities Act, 1995 and subsequent government orders in West Bengal
  2. 2 Whether the definition of 'person with disability' under Section 2(t) of the Disabilities Act, 1995 overrides more restrictive state rules
  3. 3 Whether the use of 'may' in Section 38 of the Disabilities Act made age relaxation for disabled applicants mandatory for states

Ratio Decidendi

The Disabilities Act, 1995 provides for the possibility (not the mandate) of age relaxation for persons with disabilities, as Section 38 uses 'may', making it directory and not compulsory for states to provide such relaxation. After the Government of West Bengal withdrew the age relaxation by Memo No. 1736(21) GA dated 1.11.1999, and as no legal instrument mandates such relaxation for disabled candidates, the appellant is not entitled to age relaxation despite his disability, even though the state definition of disability must align with the central Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Interim orders recalled
  • Appellant to pay costs to Respondent No. 1