V. Surendra Mohan v. State of Tamil Nadu
Background
The appellant, a practising advocate with 70% visual disability, applied for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Tamil Nadu under the "partially blind" disability category. The recruitment notification, issued after consultation between the State Government, the Madras High Court, and the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, restricted eligibility under this category to candidates with 40%-50% disability only. The appellant was excluded from the selection process on this basis and challenged the restriction, but the Madras High Court dismissed his writ petition.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the appellant could not challenge the 40%-50% eligibility condition because he had never actually challenged the recruitment notification itself in his writ petition, only a later shortlist: a procedural bar sufficient on its own to dismiss the case. On the merits, the Court also held that fixing disability eligibility at 40%-50% for a judicial post was a valid and reasonable classification, given that judges must read documents, observe witnesses, and write judgments, and that the State had arrived at this threshold after proper consultation with the High Court, which has constitutional responsibility over subordinate judiciary appointments. The appeal was dismissed.
Lesson Learnt
Reservation and equal-opportunity laws for persons with disabilities do not mean every disabled candidate automatically qualifies for every reserved post: government and courts can reasonably calibrate eligibility (such as a disability percentage band) to the genuine functional demands of a specific job.