Riitesh Sinha
Karnal, Haryana
Raikamal Roy
Riitesh Sinha is no stranger to painful assumptions about his disability. After successfully completing an undergraduate degree in science, and a post graduate diploma in computer application, in 1995, he would be dismissed offhand even before being considered for work by anNGO working with people with cerebral palsy. Riitesh's father, hopeful that the NGO would assist his enterprising son in getting a job, was told that it was unthinkable for a person with cerebral palsy to be gainfully employed. 'Such is an attitude of people towards persons with cerebral palsy,' says Riitesh,indicating a serious lack of awareness in the public about the capabilities and potential of people
with disabilities. Riitesh, undaunted, went on to start his own training centre, where he
administered computer training. 'I began a computer training centre in order to teach the basics of
computers. Initially, doubts arose about my ability to teach, but my grip on the subject and dedication
to teach, won me many students who still regard me as an excellent teacher. I also built myself a foot
operated tricycle that helped me with my mobility,' he says. In early 2010, the District and Sessions
Court, Karnal, invited applications for the post of clerks, declaring that of the 71 slots
available, one would be made available for people with disabilities, in accordance with the Persons
with Disabilities Act, 1995. Riitesh applied and successfully cleared all the selection processes,
was selected, and joined later the same year. Prior to taking up his appointment, Riitesh also
underwent a mandatory physical examination, where the degree of his disability was confirmed, and
he was deemed suitable for office work under the disabled category.
Within three months of his appointment, in a move unanticipated by Riitesh and his family, he was
served a termination letter. The employment officials of the court who delivered Riitesh's
termination order took advantage of the probation period rules, which allowed them to end the
contract without citing any reasons. Riitesh, refusing to accept his employers' decision, took matters up
with the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
In response to Riitesh's allegations of unfair dismissal, dark aspersions cast by his employers
about Riitesh's ability to work started to emerge. Officials in Riitesh's workplace alleged that they had
no choice but to dismiss Riitesh—this was due to his lack of performance, and not his disability.
He was, they would go on to state, despite their best efforts, not equipped to perform within his role.
Arguing that they were within their rights to terminate Riitesh's employment, his employers stood
their ground.
A telling excerpt from Riitesh's case history reveals the myopia of his employers—'Every effort was
made to accommodate the petitioner at the work place and his co-workers and other officials had
rendered every help to him throughout at every step and at every moment but without any result,' his
employers argued. In a circular argument that bit its own tail, Riitesh's employers would assert
repeatedly that it wasn't Riitesh's disability that was grounds for his dismissal, but his performance.
They would hold on to their standards of merit, while ignoring the genesis of those standards and the
implicit privilege towards non-disabled people they contained. While mechanically interpreting the
Disability Act 1995, Riitesh's employers ignored the spirit in which it was passed, and the
security and protection it promised. Even though they implemented the reservations they were
required to, lack of sensitivity towards the living realities of people with cerebral palsy ensured that a
conducive working environment could not be produced. Riitesh, already working under stressful
conditions, was now asked to bear the burden of the system's failure to accommodate him.
During litigation, evidence of Riitesh successfully clearing his exams during the application was
leveraged to illustrate that not only was Riitesh sufficiently equipped to handle the work he was
supposed to do, he also cleared the examinations and interviews well enough to rank 26 among a total
of 63 selected. Not only was Riitesh eligible and fit to work, he was also significantly ahead of a
majority of his nondisabled peers. Moreover, the medical test prior to joining, too, declared him
fit for employment under the requirements specific to the disabled category.
In court, the response from Riitesh's employers would be dismissed—having advertised for and
cleared candidates with disabilities, they could not then deny continued employment in the very posts
the candidates had successfully won. The error, the court saw, was not in Riitesh's inability to perform,
but in his employers' inefficacy in ensuring compliance with the standards they themselves had set in
accordance with the act.
While litigation continued, the court issued a stay order on Riitesh's dismissal and he rejoined service
until the judgment was passed. Dissatisfied, and unhappy with the allegations against him, Riitesh
made a compelling and somewhat untoward request to the court—'I was discussing the case with my
father and told him that High Court should call me for a practical test and the matter shall be finalized
there and then,' says Riitesh. In an unorthodox move, the court, for the first time in the country,
ordered a fitness examination for a petitioner, earning Riitesh an entry in the Limca Book of
Records. Riitesh passed the court-ordered test, leaving no grounds for his employers to object to
his employment, and leading to a final and definitive invalidation of his termination order. Riitesh's
case is an instance of how the intent of the act—its considerations for accessibility and full
participation—when given due consideration, leads to better and more effective implementations of the law.
'My winning the case in the High Court has paved a way for the employment of disabled persons,
particularly persons with cerebral palsy', says Riitesh. It also ensured that future instances of
discrimination could be prevented and the very same office that saw Riitesh as in need of help, now
goes to him for assistance. 'Now, in office, I am sought after by my colleagues and I resolve all
technology related issues,' he declares.
"Earlier this year, Riitesh was given an honorary doctorate in Computer Science by the Indian
Virtual University for Peace, as a recognition for this work in the field."
Source: "20 Stories of Change" by NCPEDP, New Delhi
