Dismissed¶96

P. Thangapandian alias Thangapandi v. The District Collector

Madras HC29 Jul 2025WA(MD)/2113/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Village Assistant recruitment Sivagangai; locomotor disability eligibility; Rule 7(a) Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules 1980; Fundamental Rule 10 Annexure 1-A physical fitness; RPwD Act 2016 Sections 3 and 20 non-discrimination reasonable accommodation; repugnancy subordinate legislation vs Central Act 49 of 2016; bicycle riding requirement obsolete; assistive technology; rival candidate cannot question disabled candidate; single Judge order upheld; writ appeal dismissed; Vikash Kumar v. UPSC (2021) 5 SCC 370; Madurai Bench Madras High Court; G.R. Swaminathan and K. Rajasekar.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellant; the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.25398 of 2023 was upheld and the Writ Appeal dismissed with no costs. ¶96

P. Thangapandian alias Thangapandi Vs The District Collector — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellant; the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.25398 of 2023 was upheld and the Writ Appeal dismissed with no costs.

¶96

Issue for consideration

Whether the fourth respondent, a person with locomotor disability who cannot ride a bicycle or produce the prescribed certificate of physical fitness, can be disqualified from appointment as Village Assistant under Rule 7(a) of the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules, 1980. +1 more

¶44

Court's answer

A person with bodily infirmity / locomotor disability cannot be disqualified from the post of Village Assistant merely because he cannot ride a bicycle or cannot produce the certificate of fitness in the manner prescribed; on that ground the answer to disqualification is in the negative.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

When a person with disability applies in response to a recruitment notification he must be given reasonable accommodation; all artificial barriers erected during earlier eras must be dismantled or ignored; technology is a big enabler, and if with the aid of technology or an assistive/motorised device the candidate can move about and discharge the duties of the post, his inability to perform unaided (such as riding a bicycle) becomes irrelevant.

¶58

Key takeaways

Section 3 of the 2016 RPwD Act casts an affirmative obligation on the Government to ensure that persons with disabilities enjoy equality, life with dignity and respect for integrity equally with others, and is a statutory recognition of the constitutional rights embodied in Articles 14, 19 and 21 among other Part III provisions.ratio¶57
Subordinate legislation framed under a State legislation must give way where repugnant to a parliamentary enactment; the Rule relied on by the writ petitioner is patently opposed to the statutory mandate in Section 20 of the 2016 Act (non-discrimination in employment and reasonable accommodation), and even if not formally repealed or amended, the employer cannot attach any weight to it.ratio¶71

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (Madurai Bench, Madras High Court) – Recruitment to the post of Village Assistant (notification dated 10.10.2022, Tahsildar, Sivagangai Taluk) – Appellant challenged appointment of the fourth respondent solely on the ground that the latter, a person with locomotor disability, is ineligible under Rule 7(a) of the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules, 1980 (candidate must be able to ride a bicycle and produce a physical-fitness certificate per Rule 10 and Annexure 1-A, Fundamental Rules) – Held: a literal application of the Rule would disqualify persons with bodily infirmity and militates against constitutional guarantees; the Rule is patently opposed to Sections 3 and 20 of Central Act 49 of 2016 (RPwD Act) which mandate equality, non-discrimination in employment and reasonable accommodation; subordinate State legislation must yield to a repugnant parliamentary enactment, and even unamended the employer cannot attach weight to it; absent an appropriate-Government notification excluding persons with particular benchmark disabilities from the post (none exists for Village Assistants), the recruiting agency cannot discriminate and must provide reasonable accommodation – artificial barriers of earlier eras must be dismantled; with assistive technology/motorised transport the bicycle-riding bar is irrelevant; where the department raises no objection, a rival candidate cannot question the differently abled candidate's capability – Order of learned single Judge upheld; Writ Appeal dismissed, no costs. Precedents: Vikash Kumar v. UPSC (2021) 5 SCC 370 relied on; Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 761; Rajive Raturi v. UOI (2024 INSC 858); In Re Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 274) referred.

¶1

W.A(MD) No.2113 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 29.07.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

W.A(MD) No.2113 of 2025 and C.M.P.(MD)No.12134 of 2025

¶7

P.Thangapandian @ Thangapandi ... Appellant / Writ Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The District Collector, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶10

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶11

3.The Tahsildar, Sivagangai Taluk, Sivagangai.

¶12

4.Vinothkumar ... Respondents / Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying this Court to set aside the order dated 16.12.2024 in W.P.(MD)No. 25398 of 2023 and allow the writ petition as prayed for.

¶14

For Appellant : Mr.M.Jerin Mathew

¶15

1/11

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.A(MD) No.2113 of 2025

¶18

For Respondent : Mr.N.Satheeshkumar Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R3

¶19

: Mr.R.Alagumani for R4

¶20

JUDGMENT (By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

¶21

Heard both sides.

¶22

2.The writ petitioner is the appellant herein. He challenged the recruitment notification dated 10.10.2022 issued by the Tahsildar, Sivagangai Taluk calling for applications from eligible candidates for the post of Village Assistant. The appellant herein was an aspirant for the very same post during the earlier recruitment process also. The appellant challenges the appointment of the fourth respondent solely on the ground that the fourth respondent, as a person suffering from locomotor disability, is not eligible to be appointed as Village Assistant. The learned counsel for the appellant draws our attention to Rule 7(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules, 1980. The said Rule reads as follows:-

¶23

2/11

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

W.A(MD) No.2113 of 2025

¶26

“7.Other Qualifications

¶27

(a) No person shall be eligible for appointment to the post

¶28

unless

¶29

(i) he is able to ride a bicycle

¶30

(ii) .......

¶31

(iii) he produces a certificate regarding his physical fitness for the post in the form prescribed under Rule 10 of the Fundamental Rules.”

¶32

Rule 10 of the Fundamental Rules reads as follows:-

¶33

“10.No person except a military pensioner may be substantively appointed (otherwise than as a menial paid from contingencies) to a permanent post (whether pensionable or not) in a Government service unless he has produced a certificate of physical fitness in the Form prescribed in Annexure I-A. The Government may, in individual cases, dispense with the production of such certificate and may, by general order, exempt any specified class of Government servants from the operation of this rule.”

¶34

Annexure 1-A of the Fundamental Rules contains quite a few forms in which the certificate of physical fitness have to be issued. The relevant extracts from the Form under Fundamental Rule 10 are as follows :

¶35

3/11

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

W.A(MD) No.2113 of 2025

¶38

“Certificate of Physical Fitness by a single Medical Officer/the Civil Medical Board

¶39

I/We do hereby certify that I/we have examined (full name) ........................ a candidate for employment under the Government of Tamil Nadu in the .................service as ................. and cannot discover that he/she has any disease, communicable or otherwise, constitutional affliction or bodily infirmity except that his/her weight is in excess of in excess of/Below the standard prescribed, or except

¶40

I/We do not consider this a disqualification for the employment he/she seeks.

¶41

His/Her age is according to his/her own statement .............. years and by appearance about ................. years.

¶42

I/We also certify that he/she has marks of smallpox/vaccination...”

¶43

3.The fourth respondent obviously suffers from a bodily infirmity.

¶44

He is not in a position to ride a bicycle as mandated in the aforesaid Rule. He also cannot produce the certificate of fitness in the manner prescribed. The moot question is whether on this ground, he can be disqualified. The answer is in the negative.

¶45

4.Our founding fathers forbade discrimination on grounds of

¶46

religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. Though persons with

¶47

4/11

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

W.A(MD) No.2113 of 2025

¶50

disabilities were also suffering from severe discrimination, somehow their plight escaped the attention of the Constitution-makers. Due to sustained activism of the members of the civil society, Parliament enacted the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Since the provisions of this Act fell short of achieving the stated objectives, the Central Act 49 of 2016 came to be enacted. The 2016 Act intends to give effect to the U.N Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities adopted in December, 2006. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has been delivering path breaking judgments upholding the rights and dignity of the differently abled. Some of them are Vikash Kumar v. UPSC (2021) 5 SCC 370), Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 761, Rajive Raturi v. UOI (2024 INSC 858) and In Re Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services v. The Registrar General, The High Court of

¶51

Madhya Pradesh (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 274) .

¶52

5.A paradigm shift from a benevolence-based approach to a rights

¶53

based approach has taken place. The fundamental postulate upon which the 2016 RPwD Act is based is the principle of equality and non-

¶54

5/11

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶56

W.A(MD) No.2113 of 2025

¶57

discrimination. Section 3 casts an affirmative obligation on the Government to ensure that persons with disabilities enjoy : ( i ) the right to equality; ( ii ) a life with dignity; and ( iii ) respect for their integrity equally with others. Section 3 is a statutory recognition of the constitutional rights embodied in Articles 14, 19 and 21 among other provisions of Part III of the Constitution (vide Vikash Kumar v. UPSC (2021) 5 SCC 370). This vision cannot be effectuated unless the person with disability is empowered by granting him employment. When such a person applies in response to a recruitment notification, he must be given

¶58

reasonable accommodation. The nature and extent of such accommodation will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. All artificial barriers erected during earlier eras will have to be dismantled or ignored. Technology is a big enabler. If with the aid of technology, a candidate can perform the function associated with the post in question, the fact that he cannot otherwise on his own discharge the said function becomes irrelevant. The recruitment rule for the post of Village Assistant requires the candidate to be able to ride a bicycle. A person with locomotor disability cannot ride a bicycle. But with the help of a motorised vehicle or any assistive device, he can certainly move

¶59

6/11

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶61

W.A(MD) No.2113 of 2025

¶62

from one place to another and his physical disability will not come in the

¶63

way of discharging his official duties.

¶64

6.A literal application of the statutory Rule would mean that a

¶65

person suffering from bodily infirmity is disqualified for the post of Village Assistant. Such a Rule might still be in the statute book but it not only sounds obnoxious and insensitive but militates against constitutional guarantees. Central Act 49 of 2016 is a parliamentary

¶66

enactment. Section 20 of the said Act reads as follows:-

¶67

“20. Non-discrimination in employment.—

¶68

(1) No Government establishment shall discriminate against any person with disability in any matter relating to employment: Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section.

¶69

(2) Every Government establishment shall provide reasonable accommodation and appropriate barrier free and conducive environment to employees with disability...”

¶70

A subordinate legislation framed under a State legislation has to

¶71

necessarily give way, if it is repugnant to a parliamentary enactment. The rule relied on by the writ petitioner is patently opposed to the statutory

¶72

7/11

¶73

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶74

W.A(MD) No.2113 of 2025

¶75

mandate set out in Section 20 of the 2016 Act. Even if the subordinate

¶76

legislation is not formally repealed or amended, still, the employer cannot attach any weight to the same. So long as the appropriate government had not notified that persons with particular benchmark disabilities cannot be recruited or appointed for the post in question, the recruiting agency can not only not discriminate against the differently abled but travel an extra mile to provide them reasonable accommodation. Admittedly, the Government of Tamil Nadu has not notified that considering the nature of functions to be discharged by Village Assistants, persons with locomotor disability cannot be appointed to the said post.

¶77

7.Section 3 of the 2016 Act is as follows :

¶78

“3.Equality and non-discrimination.—(1) The appropriate Government shall ensure that the persons with disabilities enjoy the right to equality, life with dignity and respect for his or her integrity equally with others.

¶79

(2) The appropriate Government shall take steps to utilise the capacity of persons with disabilities by providing appropriate environment.

¶80

8/11

¶81

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶82

W.A(MD) No.2113 of 2025

¶83

(3) No person with disability shall be discriminated on the ground of disability, unless it is shown that the impugned act or omission is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

¶84

(4) No person shall be deprived of his or her personal liberty only on the ground of disability.

¶85

(5) The appropriate Government shall take necessary steps to ensure reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities.”

¶86

Sub-section (3) of the above provision contains a leeway by which a differently abled person can be discriminated. To avoid this situation, the Government of Tamil Nadu formulated the Tamil Nadu Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2018 in which it was specifically provided as follows :

¶87

“3. Establishment not to discriminate on the ground of disability.--- (1) The head of each establishment shall ensure that the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act are not misused to deny any right and benefit to persons with disabilities covered under the Act.

¶88

(2) No establishment shall compel persons with disabilities to partly or fully pay any of the costs incurred to provide reasonable accommodation...”

¶89

When the department has not taken the stand that a person suffering from locomotor disability cannot discharge the duty of the Village Assistant, the writ petitioner who is a rival candidate cannot be permitted to

¶90

9/11

¶91

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶92

W.A(MD) No.2113 of 2025

¶93

question the ability of the differently abled candidate. The endeavour of

¶94

any employer should be to see if a person suffering from disability is capable of discharging the duties annexed to the job or post in question.

¶95

So long as the capability is not in dispute, the candidate cannot be deemed as ineligible only on account of his or her disability.