New Delhi, April 2: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that private unaided educational institutions are not bound to provide three per cent reservation to physically disabled candidates.

The apex court also ruled in the same judgment that even private companies are not obliged to retain physically disabled employees like their government counterparts.

A bench comprising Justices R V Raveendran, R M Lodha and C K Prasad, in its judgment ruled, ''It is well recognised that an aided private school would be included within the definition of 'state' in regard to its acts and functions as instrumentality of the state.

''Therefore care is taken to apply the provisions of the Act to only educational institutions belonging to the government or receiving aid from the government and not to unaided private educational institutions.''

The apex court was dealing with the provisions of person with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.

Justice Raveendran, writing 22-page-judgment for the bench, also ruled that provisions of the Section 47 of the Act would not apply to the employees of a private company.

The section debars a government company from terminating the services of its disabled employee and makes it mandatory for a government company, which is an instrumentality of the state under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, to find a suitable job for physically disabled person instead of dispensing with the services of its employee who had acquired a disability.

The apex court while allowing the petition of Dalco Engineering Private Limited, dismissed the writ petition of Satish Prabhakar Padhye and others filed in the High Court.

Padhye was employed as a telephone operator by the appellant company for more than two decades and his services were terminated with effect from December 31, 2000 on the grounds that he had become deaf (85 per cent reduction in ability to hear).

The Bombay High Court had, however, allowed the petition of the employee vides order dated December 23, 2005 and directed the company to reinstate the respondent.

The apex court, however, noted, ''We agree that socio-economic Legislation should be interpreted liberally. It is also true that courts should adopt different yardsticks and measures for interpreting socio-economic statutes as compared to the penal statutes and taxing statutes.

''But a caveat. The courts can not obviously expand the application of a provision in a socio-economic legislation by judicial interpretation, to levels unintendedly the legislature or in a manner which militates against the provisions of the statutes itself or against any Constitutional limitation.

''In this case there is a clear indication in the statutes that the benefit is intended to be restricted to a particular class of employee, that is, employees of enumerated establishments (which fall within the scope of state under Article 12).

''Express limitations placed by the the socio-economic statutes cannot be ignored, so as to include in its application those who are clearly excluded by such statutes itself.''

The apex court, however, made it clear that this judgment would not come in the way of employee of any private company, who had been terminated on the grounds of disability, seeking or enforcing any right available under any other statute, in accordance with law.

Read related articles:

SC says 3 pc disabled quota not applicable to pvt unaided schools

Source: http://www.mynews.in