L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The petitioner challenges Section 2(b) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short, 'the Act') as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India insofar as it does not take in its fold the persons with single functional eye or those suffering with disability of 30%.
2. The petitioner states that he was born with only one functional eye and the vision of the other eye is totally impaired. According to him, wherever the person born with one functional eye, was invariably certified as suffering with 30% disability. His complaint is that he cannot be treated as disabled person as defined in Section 2 of the said Act. According to him, 'blindness' which is defined in Section 2(b) of the Act does not take in its fold the persons with only one functional eye or those suffering with disability of 30%. The other limb of his contention is that he is not being considered on par with general candidates also on account of the 30% disability suffered by him.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nooty Rama Mohana Rao, learned Standing Counsel.
4. The Parliament had enacted the Act referred to above with a view to protect the interests of the various categories of disabled persons in the matter of employment and other aspects of life. One of the types of disabilities recognized under the Act is 'blindness'. It is defined under Section 2(b) of the Act as under:
' (b) 'blindness' refers to a condition where a person suffers from any of the following conditions, namely:-
(i) total absence of sight; or
(ii) visual acuity not exceeding 6/60 or 20/200 (snellen) in the better eye with correcting lenses; or
(iii) limitation of the field of vision subtending an angle of 20 degree or worse; '
5. The respondents have issued a notification published in 'Employment News' on 22nd and 28th of March 2003, inviting applications for several categories of posts at different places in the country. The respondents have provided for reservation in favour of physically handicapped candidates. So far as the blindness or low vision is concerned, they have adopted the definition under Section 2(b) of the Act verbatim. Since the petitioner does not fall into any of the categories, he is not entitled to claim the benefit of reservation for physically handicapped categories.
6. The Parliament had adopted certain parameters to define the physical disability on several categories. The definitions are based on the elaborate scientific study and physical data collected, before the Act came to be enacted. While extending some benefits or providing for special treatment, the Parliament is always within its competence to stipulate the necessary parameters. It is not as if any deficiency vis--vis the perfect vision, hearing etc., should be treated as disability by itself. By their very nature, such faculties are bound to vary from person to person. It is only when the disability or the deficiency is to such an extent as would differentiate the person from others with ordinary faculties then he can be treated as physically disabled. If every minute deficiency as to the functioning of the sense organs is to be treated as a physical disability, a situation would arise wherein the exception would eat away the rule. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to place any data or material before this court to show that the levels of vision possessed by the petitioner are such as would render him physically handicapped. To attack the validity of a legislation, much more is needed than mere assertion of some inconvenience or disadvantage. Therefore, this court is not convinced to accept the plea of the petitioner as regards the validity of Section 2(b) of the Act.
7. The second limb of the submission, however, deserves certain attention. If a person cannot be treated as a physically handicapped person, it is axiomatic that he should be treated on par with other candidates. There does not exist any justification to deny the petitioner the benefit or treatment which others are entitled to. Hence, it is directed that the petitioner shall be treated on par with any other candidates and he shall not be discriminated on account of the visual disability which he is suffering as a person with single functional eye.
8. The writ petition is dismissed subject, however, to the observations made above.