2013 (7) TMI 1121 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Age relaxation for disabled persons in employment.
2. Applicability of the Disabilities Act over State Government Orders.
3. Interpretation of statutory terms "may" and "shall".
4. Validity of State Government Orders in light of the Disabilities Act.

Summary:

1. Age Relaxation for Disabled Persons in Employment:
The primary issue revolves around the employment of the Appellant and Respondent No. 1 in the Group 'D' staff of a high school. The Appellant, who suffers from a 60% hearing disability, contended that he was entitled to age relaxation. However, the Respondent No. 1 challenged this on the grounds that the Appellant had crossed the permissible age limit for recruitment. The Court noted that the Disabilities Act does not explicitly mandate age relaxation for disabled persons, which is a lacuna in the legislation.

2. Applicability of the Disabilities Act over State Government Orders:
The Court emphasized that the Disabilities Act, which came into force on 7th February 1996, should override any State legislation or Rules that are irreconcilable or repugnant to it. Despite this, the Appellant could not benefit from the Act due to the absence of a mandatory provision for age relaxation.

3. Interpretation of Statutory Terms "May" and "Shall":
The Court discussed the interpretation of the terms "may" and "shall" in Section 38 of the Disabilities Act. It concluded that the term "may" confers discretion and is not mandatory, especially when used in close proximity to "shall". This interpretation led to the conclusion that age relaxation for disabled persons is not compulsory under the Disabilities Act.

4. Validity of State Government Orders in Light of the Disabilities Act:
The Court examined various Government Orders from West Bengal, which initially provided age relaxation for physically handicapped persons but later withdrew this benefit. The Court found that the deletion of age relaxation post-1st November 1999 was a retrograde action but legally valid since the Disabilities Act did not mandate such relaxation. Consequently, the Appellant could not claim age relaxation based on the existing legal framework.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the Appellant failed to disclose any legislation, rules, or orders that would support his claim for age relaxation. The interim orders were recalled, and the Appellant was directed to pay costs to Respondent No. 1.