https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277388 The disability definition under the Disabilities Act prevailed over inconsistent State instructions, so a candidate with hearing disability falling within the statutory forty per cent threshold was recognised as a person with disability for recruitment purposes. However, Section 38 was treated as discretionary because it states that schemes for employment of persons with disabilities may provide age relaxation. In the absence of an implementing scheme or other enforceable rule, age relaxation was not mandatory and could not be claimed as of right. The ratio stated that the use of "may" in relation to recruitment relaxation is directory, not compulsory. en-us Mon, 01 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Dec 2018 09:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277388 The disability definition under the Disabilities Act prevailed over inconsistent State instructions, so a candidate with hearing disability falling within the statutory forty per cent threshold was recognised as a person with disability for recruitment purposes. However, Section 38 was treated as discretionary because it states that schemes for employment of persons with disabilities may provide age relaxation. In the absence of an implementing scheme or other enforceable rule, age relaxation was not mandatory and could not be claimed as of right. The ratio stated that the use of "may" in relation to recruitment relaxation is directory, not compulsory. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 01 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277388