Prepare SOP, sensitise officials dealing with disabled persons: Madras High Court to Puducherry

The Madras High Court recently directed the Puducherry government to frame a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and conduct sensitisation programmes for officials dealing with disabled persons [E Hariharan Vs Union of India].

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan emphasised that public authorities must adopt a more humane and proactive approach while handling such cases.

The Court asked the Chief Secretary of the Union Territory of Puducherry to prepare an SOP and organise periodic sensitisation programmes for all departments within two months.

“The principles enshrined in the Constitution often find it difficult to operate on ground realities because of attitudinal behaviour and approach which lacks sensitivity," the Court observed.

The Court made the observation while granting relief to a disabled engineer who was denied a nativity certificate and declared medically unfit for appointment as a junior engineer in the Puducherry Electricity Department.

The petitioner E Hariharan, who suffers from 40 percent locomotor disability caused by hereditary sensory motor neuropathy, had been provisionally selected for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) after securing 65.50 marks in the recruitment process.

However, his appointment was stalled after authorities refused to issue him a nativity certificate and a Medical Board declared him unfit for the post.

Hariharan told the Court that he was born, raised and educated in Puducherry. He completed his B.Tech in Electrical and Electronics Engineering from Pondicherry Engineering College and had worked for more than four years as an electrical supervisor at a private company.

The authorities denied him a nativity certificate on the ground that he was temporarily residing in Arasalakudi village in Tamil Nadu.

The petitioner explained that after his mother died during the Covid-19 pandemic in 2021, he and his elderly father had to move temporarily to stay near his sister as there was no one to assist them in Puducherry.

The Court found that authorities had ignored overwhelming evidence showing the petitioner’s continuing link with Puducherry.

These included his birth certificate, education records and identity documents such as Aadhaar, ration card, PAN card and voter ID, all reflecting Puducherry as his native place.

The Bench also noted that the petitioner and his father continued to remain voters in Puducherry and had voted in the 2024 Lok Sabha election.

The Court criticised the authorities for their approach and said the rejection of the nativity certificate was unjustified.

“This finding of the respondents is not only perverse, mechanical and arbitrary, but lacks sensitivity while dealing with an application of a person suffering from disability.”

The Bench clarified that a person cannot be denied nativity merely because they temporarily reside elsewhere.

The Court also found serious flaws in the Medical Board’s decision declaring Hariharan medically unfit.

It noted that the Board had failed to examine whether the petitioner was actually capable of performing the duties of a Junior Engineer.

The Bench emphasised that disability assessments cannot be reduced to a rigid or formulaic process.

It further observed that public authorities must adopt a progressive approach while assessing the capabilities of persons with disabilities.

“If we claim to be a progressive society in the 21st Century, the old-age practice of monotonous automation needs to be zealously eschewed,” the Bench opined.

It highlighted that the rights of persons with disabilities are rooted in constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity.

“A person with disability is legitimate in his expectation that in all walks of life he would be treated equally, without discrimination and attitudinal barriers,” the Court said.

Hence, it directed authorities to immediately issue the nativity certificate to Hariharan.

It also ordered the constitution of a fresh Medical Board consisting of medical experts including a neurologist as well as a departmental officer familiar with the duties of a Junior Engineer (Electrical).

The Court said the petitioner would be entitled to appointment against an existing vacancy if he is cleared by the new Medical Board.

The Bench also directed the authorities to pay ₹50,000 as costs to the petitioner.

Hariharan was represented by Senior Advocate R Vaigai and advocate S Meenakshi

Additional Government Pleader V Vasanthakumar appeared for the respondents.

[Read Judgment]