13 years after accident, Karnataka High Court asks school to pay Rs 10 lakh relief to paralysed teacher

The Karnataka High Court has upheld an order passed by the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities in 2020, directing payment of Rs 10 lakh as compensation to a teacher who became disabled while trying to save a student who had climbed the windowsill and was later sacked by the school.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj, dismissing the petition filed by PSBB Learning Leadership Academy, which is said to be rated among the best schools in India for providing value-based education, said, “The direction to pay Rs 10,00,000 is a legitimate exercise of compensatory power under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and not a penal fine.”

The court, in its order on June 1, directed the school to issue a formal written offer of reinstatement to the teacher, stating that if she would join, she would be provided with reasonable accommodations—namely, a ground-floor wheelchair-accessible classroom, disabled-friendly washroom, transport allowance of Rs 15,000 per month, 15-minute break after every two periods, option to teach online on days when physically unable to attend, and a first-aid facility.

The bench in its order also said, “If Respondent No.1 (teacher) accepts the offer of reinstatement within 30 days of receiving such offer, the school shall ensure her reinstatement with seniority counted from her original date of appointment (08.07.2008), and with salary and emoluments applicable to a teacher of her grade and seniority.

The bench has also directed the school to notify and register an ‘Equal Opportunity Policy’ as mandated under Section 21 of the Disabilities Act of 2016, read with Rule 8 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017. It is also directed to conduct an accessibility audit of its school premises by an empanelled accessibility consultant and take corrective steps to comply with the Harmonised Guidelines and Space Standards for Barrier Free Built Environment, 2021.

Teacher suffers injury while trying to save student

Barnali Rout joined the school as a teacher on July 8, 2008. After completion of the probationary period, her appointment was confirmed on July 13, 2009. On August 22, 2013, a Class 6 student changed her marks on some subject papers, which led to an enquiry by the teachers. Out of fear of being caught in the enquiry, the student stepped out under the windowsill of the school building, located between the ground and the first floor, and threatened to jump off.

It is alleged that Rout voluntarily, without direct or indirect instructions or knowledge of anyone else, attempted to climb onto the windowsill to save the student in a daring and reckless manner. While attempting to do so, she lost her footing and fell to the ground floor, resulting in grave injuries. On seeing this, the student also panicked and jumped, but was saved by the school teachers and staff waiting below. The teacher was transferred to the hospital, and the school paid the treatment expenses.

Story continues below this ad

In 2015, when Rout did not report to the school, an email was sent to her on May 14, 2015, indicating that the school had waited patiently for her to resume duty. Since she did not report for duty, it was indicated that she could take on a retainer role for six months at her convenience. She was served the termination letter on May 31, approximately 21 months after the accident.

Rout then filed a complaint before the Commissioner of Disabilities in 2019. The school offered to reinstate her as an administrative support staff member with a consolidated pay of Rs 15,000; following this, the impugned order was passed.

Senior Advocate B K Sampath, appearing for the school, argued that Rout could not have approached the Commissioner of Disabilities, as she could have sought a remedy only under the Karnataka Education Act by filing an appeal against the termination of services, within three months. Moreover, the complaint was filed almost four years after the termination of services.

Sampath also submitted that the petitioner school’s action is proper and correct. “The teacher not being able to discharge her functions as a teacher due to her severe disability, there could not have been an order of reinstatement of the teacher made. Such reinstatement will act contrary to and will not be in the interest of the students concerned,” he submitted.

Story continues below this ad

He further argued that the school had paid all her hospital expenses after the accident and had paid her salary in full until her termination after 1.5 years, amounting to more than Rs 11 lakh.

Sampath also contended that every establishment is required to provide equal opportunity to all, including persons with disabilities. The rights of both the person with a disability and other persons, as well as those of students, must be balanced.

‘Disabilities Act applicable to private establishments’

Rejecting the contention of the school that obligations under the Act lie only on the state and not on private entities, the High Court said, “The Disabilities Act of 2016 is not restricted in its application to government institutions alone. Its provisions, particularly Sections 2(i), 2(v), 3(3), 21, read with Rule 8 of the Rules of 2017, apply to private institutions and private establishments as well.”

Further, it held that Section 16 of the Act imposes a duty to make buildings accessible, provide reasonable accommodation, and provide transportation facilities, among other obligations. This obligation encompasses all educational institutions funded or recognised by them, which includes CBSE-affiliated private schools such as the petitioner school.

Story continues below this ad

The bench said that a private CBSE-affiliated school that resists this is resisting the very purpose of its recognition.”

Further, it added, “A school that employs a teacher with disability and provides her with reasonable accommodation demonstrates to its students the lived reality of inclusion. The refusal to accommodate the teacher undermines the very values of inclusive education that Section 16 seeks to promote.”

‘School’s offer of administrative role discriminatory’

The bench in its order noted that the school’s offer of an administrative role at a reduced monthly salary of Rs 15,000, without any attempt to explore whether the teacher could continue as a teacher with appropriate accommodation, amounted to a ‘discrimination’ and ‘restriction’ on the basis of disability’ within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act.

The High Court held that the manner in which the employment ended, without formal notice as per the contract, and without any assessment of whether the teacher could continue with reasonable accommodation, is itself an act of discrimination within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act.

Story continues below this ad

Rejecting the contention of the school that reinstatement of the teacher who is disabled would adversely affect the interests of students. The bench in its order said, “This court accepts that the students’ right to quality education is important. However, the petitioner has not demonstrated that a wheelchair-using teacher with appropriate accommodations will adversely affect the quality of teaching.”

The order added, “Globally, teachers with disabilities teach effectively with appropriate support. The school’s assumption that the teacher’s disability necessarily renders her unable to teach at a high level is itself a form of stereotyping that the Disabilities Act of 2016 seeks to combat.”

The bench held that the present case is exceptional. “The teacher did not choose to become disabled. She acquired the disability in an act of selfless courage within the school’s premises. The school’s response, to offer her a demotion and then to treat the employment as ended, is precisely the kind of institutional indifference that the 2016 Act is designed to counter.”

The bench also said, “Teaching is a cognitive and communicative function. It does not require physical mobility. A teacher in a wheelchair can conduct classes, set assignments, evaluate papers, and interact with students exactly as a mobile teacher can. There is no basis for the assumption that the teacher would require a co-teacher to assist her in teaching.”

Story continues below this ad

Stating that the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, constituted under Section 79 of the 2016 Act, has jurisdiction and power to issue binding corrective directions against private establishments, including directions to pay compensation. The bench dismissed the petition.

Court issues Standard Operating Procedure

The High Court also issued a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to give effect to the statutory rights created by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017.

The order made it clear that the SOP applies universally to all categories of establishments, all public buildings, all specified disabilities, all persons, regardless of age or gender, throughout Karnataka. Further, it does not dilute any existing statutory obligation and operates in addition to the National Building Code of India and the Harmonised Guidelines and Space Standards for Barrier Free Built Environment.

What does the SOP say

All government establishments and educational institutions shall designate a Liaison Officer/Accessibility Nodal Officer (ANO) with displayed contact details; create an internal grievance redressal mechanism.

All establishments shall frame, notify, display, and register their Equal Opportunity Policy. All public buildings shall have at least one accessible toilet on at least one floor; ramps shall be installed at all principal entrances; accessible parking shall be provided; disability-inclusive signage shall be displayed.

The state government shall amend all municipal building bye-laws to incorporate accessibility requirements.

Full physical accessibility shall be achieved in all principal functional areas of all public buildings, entrances, corridors, workspaces, classrooms, and service areas. Accessible lifts or alternatives shall be installed where required.

The State Accessibility Authority shall be established.

Unified Accessibility Compliance Portal shall be launched.

Panchayat regulations and town planning laws shall be amended to integrate accessibility requirements. Digital accessibility certification requirements shall be in place for all government platforms.

Within 18 months from the date of this order, the full statewide accessibility framework shall be operationalised across all districts and all categories of establishments.

In two years, audible traffic signals shall be installed at all signalised pedestrian crossings.

Full accessibility compliance shall be achieved in all buildings and premises, including libraries, laboratories, recreational facilities, and sports facilities. Digital accessibility certification shall be completed for all government software platforms.