In light of petitions to include persons with disabilities in the IPS, DANIPS, and IRPF, the Supreme Court asked the Center on Tuesday to detail the nature of details regarding entry-level posts and the job profile of those hired. I was. Indian Police Service, Indian Railway Protection Army Service, Delhi, Daman & Diu, Dadra, Nagar Haveli, Andaman, Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep Islands Police Service.
Judges Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta requested the Center to submit affidavits within four weeks on:
- Nature of entry level posts, job profile of those hired at IPS, DANIPS and IRPF.
- Instructions for recruitment to IPS by promotion from among qualified police officers of the police service, including relevant regulations, administrative memorandums, and disability situations.
The Center has filed three affidavits on the matter, taking the position that rigorous training is required for persons with disabilities to hold IPS and DANIPS posts.
Petitioner’s senior advocate, Arvind Datar, argued that the center could not take such a position. “Adjust the post or employment that allows a particular person to hold a particular post, according to the definition of ‘reasonable accommodation’ under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016. For example, if a person has a locomotive problem, that person can have a desk job.. Simply, I can’t say I don’t occupy.
Datar also gave the example of Telangana where persons with disabilities were appointed as inspectors and deputy inspectors. “But with IPS, they [Centre] say it’s not possible. ”
“A person who has been brought into this condition as a result of an accident is deemed obligated to provide reasonable accommodation and must do so in some way. But if someone is at the threshold, they [Centre] I don’t want to give That’s the approach,” Bench observed.
Bench then said, “Under IPS, they [persons with disabilities] Were they rejected at some threshold of requirements?” Datar said no such data is available at this time.
As the hearing progressed, Datar examined the definition of “facility” under the 2016 Act. The bench pondered whether IPS would be included in its mandate.
“Executives should not belong to an organization. Your lord is right!”, Datar later agreed.
What are the legal requirements for specifying these parameters? Bench then asked.
none. Datar replied that he had an office memorandum.
“It’s a sensitive topic. Reservations across executives is one thing we can understand,” Bench said.
Datar clarified that he believed that Section 2(y), which defines reasonable accommodation itself, should not impose a disproportionate or undue burden on others.
Giving the example of a CBI responsible position that mandates fieldwork, Bench said a person who was in another department “never seen the action” cannot be made responsible.
So the center should point out the functional requirements of the posts, said Datar.
“What are the functional requirements? For this function, who can do it …..Unless a person with a disability indicates that the requirement cannot be reached. You can’t be in the military.”
“So it’s based on aptitude for the position, ability of the disabled, etc. The rules are going to make it stricter. It’s uncharted territory now,” Bench points out, noting that executives have different types of positions (managerial). department, operations department, cyber department, etc.).
“Unions say IPS has rigorous training and is not open to people with disabilities,” says Datar.
He also pointed out 650 posts within the police station where persons with disabilities can be appointed. The petitioner identified several posts that persons with disabilities could occupy in the police, arranged in the form of tables in front of benches. Next, Bench wanted to know if those posts were beginner-level posts.
“A beginner-level post should see the extent of possible adjustments,” Bench noted.
“For example, if an able-bodied person becomes disabled at work and then gets promoted, the question is whether they can adapt given that they have become disabled. Will they get promoted?”
The court noted that if there is a reservation for disabled persons, it may hinder the promotion of able-bodied persons.
“Look. It doesn’t mean that all desk work should be left to people with disabilities. Police departments are not meant to work in silos. Some positions are certainly added value for people,” Bench added. rice field.
“All my posts are combat-based and it would not be fair to say that I do not offer reasonable accommodation,” Datar added.
Additional Attorney General Aishwarya Bhati filed that none of the posts identified by the petitioners were entry-level posts. Quoting from her filed affidavit, she said there are no exclusive administrative posts at IPS or DANIPS. In addition, the post requires some kind of physical and endurance training. It requires rigorous training activities that people with disabilities cannot do.
“IPS and IRPFS are technical services and require the right vision. The most qualified candidates must be appointed to maintain law and order.”
the court asked,
“Are there any rules about what kind of training is required?” This prompted the court to question the annual hiring of IPS officers.
Each year it is 150 to 200, the court said.
There are two types of disability that serve as exceptions – occupational and military disability, continued the ASG.
Bench said there are two streams in the state itself. One is the State Police Service and then the Subordinate Police Service. The difference is that the latter cannot enter her IPS.
“We are outraged by their attitude that all IPS posts are combat-based. It’s not a combat post,” added Datar.
“At most, [Centre’s stand] It is unreasonable,” the court said.
“It’s about what relief people with disabilities can get,” Datar said, adding that Congress is asking people with disabilities to be treated reasonably. “Is it correct for the government to say that all posts are combat-based?
The court reminded us that at the elementary level, all police officers must do all sorts of jobs.
“At the beginner level, everyone has to do everything.
“We’ll get back to your lord on what we can do,” Datar assured.
The matter is scheduled to be heard in July, after the court’s summer break.
In March 2022, the Supreme Court passed an interim order allowing persons with disabilities to temporarily apply for IPS, IRPFS, and DANIPS services. At a subsequent hearing, the Supreme Court asked the Center to handle the matter with sensitive elements.
Case Title: National Platform for Disability Rights v. Coalition of India | WP(C) 1343/2021
Advocate for Record Rahul Bajaj also appeared with Datar.