Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. OA is to be allowed with the modified results as stated above. No order as to costs."

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the learned third Judge, CAT has virtually interpreted Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as PWD Act, 1995, for short) by ignoring the golden rule of interpretation. It is argued that unless Section 33 is amended to include persons with multiple disabilities of 40% and above to claim reservation, there cannot be any order. It is argued that the learned third Judge has virtually made a new law which was outside the scope of the CAT. It is argued that reservation for appointment as per Section 33 of PWD Act, 1995, is allowed for only those persons with disabilities who have not less than 40% in a particular category of disability and there is no provision for reservation in employment for persons with multiple disabilities with 40% and above where the percentage of disability in any particular category mentioned above is less than 40%. It is also contended that respondent No.1 cannot be allocated service against non-PH category vacancies since he had availed extra time in CSE 2009, both in preliminary as well as the main examination.

19. It is true that on a plain reading of Section 33 of PWD Act, 1995, there should be a reservation not less than 3% for persons or class of persons with disability. Admittedly, the words "multiple disability" have not been defined in PWD Act, 1995. On the other hand, the words "multiple disabilities" have been defined in subsequent Act i.e., Act 44 of 1999 in Section 2(h).

20. Section 2(h) of the said Act defines "multiple disabilities" and the same is as follows:

(h) "multiple disabilities" means a combination of two or more disabilities as defined in clause

(i) of section 2 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (1 of 1996);

21. The intention of the subsequent Act i.e., Act 44 of 1999, is to strengthen families and to protect the interest of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disability after the death of their parents.

22. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, there is no provision dealing with multiple disability in PWD Act, 1995. Here is a case in which the first respondent has blindness to an extent of 30% and 15% locomotor disability, which is definitely more than 40% prescribed in the statutory notification issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, as per the relevant provisions of PWD Act, 1995. Just because there is no provision for 'multiple disability' in PWD Act, 1995, is it right to deny the opportunity to the first respondent, is the question?

53. This also holds good in the present case to keep in tune with the subsequent Act i.e., Act 44 of 1999 while importing definition of 'multiple disability' in the subsequent Act to the earlier PWD Act, 1995.

54. In the light of the above discussion made by us, we are of the considered opinion that the opinion of the third Judge, Central Administrative Bench, Bangalore, is quite consistent with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions referred to above. It is not the question of prospectivity or retrospectivity of the relevant provisions of the PWD Act, 1995. The learned Third Judge has explained the exact position of law in regard to the provisions of Sections 32 and 33 of PWD Act, 1995, which Act, is a welfare legislation enacted to protect the interests of physically handicapped persons who are from weaker sections of the society.