Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Mayank Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15570
1 WP-43475-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
WRIT PETITION No. 43475 of 2025
DR. MAYANK SHRIVASTAVA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shashank Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Smrati Sharma- GA appearing for respondents/State.
Shri Shashank Indapurkar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
Order Reserved on : 06.05.2026 Order passed on: 11.05.2026
1. The instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks following reliefs:-
"a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction to modify to the extent of distinguishment of the impugned clause in the examination policy of the Respondent Commission prescribing a distinct 30% cut-off for SC/ST/OBC/EWS and the Physically Challenged (PwD) candidates;
b) Direct the Respondent Commission to prescribe a distinct and relaxed qualifying cut-off for physically challenged candidates, not exceeding 20%, in consonance with the principles of reasonable classification and equity;
c) Pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble 'Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The petitioner, who is differently-abled and suffering from Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 5/11/2026 5:24:06 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15570 2 WP-43475-2025 locomotive disability to the extent of 60%, is an aspirant for being appointed as a Dentist in response to the Dental Surgeon Recruitment Examination, 2024 conducted by respondent No. 2. The petitioner appears to be primarily aggrieved by condition No. 4 pertaining to the question paper scheme wherein, it has been provided that the question paper shall be in two sections, that is, Section-A shall be of the General Studies whereas, Section- B shall be of the relevant subject and it shall be incumbent to achieve at least 40% marks separately in each section. The said clause further provides that for the SC/ST and OBC categories notified in the State of Madhya Pradesh, so also, the EWS category and the persons with benchmark disability shall be entitled for relaxation of 10% marks in each paper and in this manner, it shall be incumbent upon them to obtain at least 30% marks in each paper and the merit shall be prepared by adding the marks of both sections. Thus, the petitioner appears to be aggrieved by uniform relaxation of 10% in minimum qualifying marks granted to the persons with benchmark disability in the recruitment process in question at par with SC, ST, OBC, and EWS category candidates and seeks enhancement in the relaxation in minimum qualifying marks.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that by clubbing the persons with benchmark disability along with SC/ ST and OBC, so also, EWS candidates for the purpose of grant of relaxation of 10% marks, the respondent authorities have violated Article 16 (4) of the Constitution of India, 1950, as according to the petitioner, the persons with benchmark disability ought to have been granted relaxation more than the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 5/11/2026 5:24:06 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15570 3 WP-43475-2025 candidates of SC/ST, OBC and EWS category candidates. Unless, the relaxation of marks more than the SC, ST, OBC and EWS candidates is granted to the persons with benchmark disability, the very object of providing reservation to the persons with benchmark disability stands frustrated, which is not in conformity with the provisions contained under Sections 33 and 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "RPwD Act, 2016 ") and therefore, attracts penal action in terms of Section 89 of the RPwD Act, 2016.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further places reliance on Annexure P/6, i.e. the scheme of allocation of marks of Combined Medical Services Examination, 2024 conducted by UPSC wherein, the minimum qualifying marks and the cut-off marks have been kept less than those kept for the SC, ST, OBC and EWS category candidates. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the policy of the State to grant uniform relaxation of 10% of marks to the persons with benchmark disability at par with the SC, ST, OBC and EWS candidates does not have any nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The policy of the State is therefore vulnerable. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Vikas Kumar vs. Union Public Service Commission and Others; (2021) 12 SCR 31, with reference to para 33 and 34 dealing with the principle of equality and non-discrimination as propounded by the Apex Court in the matter of persons with disabilities.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 5/11/2026 5:24:06 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15570 4 WP-43475-2025 No. 2, by referring to the return filed, submits that the advertisement for the recruitment on the posts in question was issued on 31.12.2024. The written examinations were held on 12.10.2025 whereas, the present writ petition has been filed on 04.11.2025 i.e., after participating in the selection process. He submits that in view of the settled proposition that the rules of game cannot be challenged after participating in the same, the present writ petition does not deserve consideration on merits. He submits that the written examination result of persons with benchmark disability in the recruitment process in question has been declared wherein, the roll number of the petitioner does not find mention. It is thus clear that the petitioner has failed in the written examination. That apart, he submits that the grant of relaxation of 10% marks in the written examination in each section of papers has nothing to do with the implementation of the reservation in terms of Section 33 and 34 of the RPwD Act, 2016. The respondents have identified the post on which, the persons with benchmark disability could be granted reservation and in the impugned advertisement itself; six posts have been earmarked for persons having locomotive disability, five posts have been earmarked for persons having visual impairment, six posts have been earmarked for hearing impaired and six posts have been earmarked for multiple disability. In such manner, the provisions of the RPwD Act, 2016 stand complied with. He submits that the respondent No. 2 is only the implementing agency. The grant of relaxation of marks is a policy decision taken by the State of MP, Department of General Administration, vide circulars dated 31.03. 2005 and 04.04.2006, (Annexure R/2-1). The validity of the said circulars are not Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 5/11/2026 5:24:06 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15570 5 WP-43475-2025 challenged in the present petition. He places reliance on the judgment by the Apex Court in the case of Rekha Sharma vs. Rajasthan High Court; 2024 AIR SC 4241. He further submits that no ground to challenge the policy decision of the State for granting 10% relaxation to the persons with benchmark disability in the recruitment process and not more has been pleaded or argued by the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the State apart from adopting the arguments advanced on behalf of respondent No. 2 submits that the instant writ petition tends to intermingle the aspect of reservation to persons with benchmark disability and the grant of relaxation of 10% marks which operate in entirely different fields. The policy of the State government cannot be said to be so arbitrary or irrational so as to warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
7. No other point has been pressed by learned counsel for the parties.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. A specific objection has been raised by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, in its return that the petitioner had challenged the terms and conditions of the recruitment advertisement after participation in the selection process. The petitioner in para-5 (4) of the pleadings in the writ petition admits the said fact. During the course of arguments, it has been specifically submitted by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 that the petitioner had remained unsuccessful in the written examination, and his name does not find mention in the list of candidates who have been called for interview. The said aspect also remains Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 5/11/2026 5:24:06 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15570 6 WP-43475-2025 undisputed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash Shukla vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla; AIR 1986 SC 1043; Ashok Kumar vs. State of Bihar, 2017 (4) SCC 357 and Union of India vs. S. Vinod Kumar; (2007) 8 SCC 100, has categorically held that a candidate, after participation in the selection process and on being unsuccessful, cannot be permitted to question the terms and conditions under which, the selection process has been held. This court is, therefore, in full agreement with the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 that having participated in the selection process and being unsuccessful, it is not open for the petitioner to challenge the terms and conditions of the recruitment advertisement.
10. Since the petitioner suffers from benchmark disability and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had argued that the relaxation criteria as impugned in the present writ petition may have effect on other persons similarly situated like the petitioner in future recruitment processes also, therefore, this court proceeds to examine the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner on merits.
11. Primarily, the argument raised by the petitioner attacks the policy of the State whereby, 10% relaxation has been extended to the persons suffering with benchmark disability in the minimum qualifying marks at par with the SC, ST, OBC and EWS category candidates and it has been argued that keeping the persons with benchmark disability at par or similarly situated with SC, ST, OBC and EWS candidates violates Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 5/11/2026 5:24:06 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15570 7 WP-43475-2025
12. Though, the recruitment rules governing the service conditions of the post on which the recruitment in question is held have not been brought to the notice of this court, however, the advertisement reveals that the recruitment process in question is being held for recruitment to the post of Dental Surgeon in the Labour Department as well as the Department of Public Health and Family Welfare, Government of MP. The terms and conditions of the dentists/dental surgeons working in the Department of Public Health and Family Welfare, Government of MP are governed by the Madhya Pradesh Public Health and Family Welfare (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2022. The said recruitment rules do not provide for any relaxation in the minimum qualifying marks for the persons with benchmark disability, however, Rule 11(5) of the rules provide that the provisions for reservation for persons with benchmark disability as declared by the government shall be horizontal and compartment-wise.
13. The relaxation of 10% marks to the persons with benchmark disability in the minimum qualifying mark is extended by virtue of the circulars dated 31.5. 2005 and 4.4.2006 (Annexure R/2-1) issued by the Department of General Administration, Government of MP.
14. The RPwD Act, 2016 seeks to operationalize and give concrete shape to the promise of full and equal citizenship held out by the Constitution to the disabled and to execute its ethos of inclusion and acceptance. The important provisions of the RPwD Act, 2016 are as follows:
"SECTION 2 ( C ) "barrier" means any factor including communicational, cultural, economic, environmental, Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 5/11/2026 5:24:06 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15570 8 WP-43475-2025 institutional, political, social, attitudinal or structural factors which hampers the full and effective participation of persons with disabilities in society;
(h) "discrimination" in relation to disability, means any distinction, exclusion, restriction on the basis of disability which is the purpose or effect of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field and includes all forms of discrimination and denial of reasonable accommodation;
(l) "high support" means an intensive support, physical, psychological and otherwise, which may be required by a person with benchmark disability for daily activities, to take independent and informed decision to access facilities and participating in all areas of life including education, employment, family and community life and treatment and therapy;
(r) "person with benchmark disability" means a person with not less than forty per cent. of a specified disability where specified disability has not been defined in measurable terms and includes a person with disability where specified disability has been defined in measurable terms, as certified by the certifying authority;
(s) "person with disability" means a person with long term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which, in interaction with barriers, hinders his full and effective participation in society equally with others;
(y) "reasonable accommodation" means necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments, without imposing a disproportionate or undue burden in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise of rights equally with others.
SECTION 3 "Equality and non-discrimination- (1) The Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 5/11/2026 5:24:06 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15570 9 WP-43475-2025 appropriate Government shall ensure that the persons with disabilities enjoy the right to equality, life with dignity and respect for his or her integrity equally with others. (2) The appropriate Government shall take steps to utilise the capacity of persons with disabilities by providing appropriate environment".
SECTION 5 Community life- (1) The persons with disabilities shall have the right to live in the community.
SECTION 6 Protection from cruelty and inhuman treatment- (1) The appropriate Government shall take measures to protect persons with disabilities from being subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
SECTION 12 Access to justice- (1) The appropriate Government shall ensure that persons with disabilities are able to exercise the right to access any court, tribunal, authority, commission or any other body having judicial or quasi-judicial or investigative powers without discrimination on the basis of disability.
SECTION 16 Duty of educational institutions- The appropriate Government and the local authorities shall endeavour that all educational institutions funded or recognised by them provide inclusive education to the children with disabilities and towards that end shall-- (i) admit them without discrimination and provide education and opportunities for sports and recreation activities equally with others;
SECTION 20 Non-discrimination in employment- (1) No Government establishment shall discriminate against any person with disability in any matter relating to employment: (2) Every Government establishment shall provide reasonable accommodation and appropriate barrier free and conducive environment to employees with disability. (3) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of disability.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 5/11/2026 5:24:06 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15570 10 WP-43475-2025 SECTION 17 Specific measures to promote and facilitate inclusive education.
The appropriate Government and the local authorities shall take the following measures for the purpose of section 16, namely:
(a) to conduct survey of school going children in every five years for identifying children with disabilities, ascertaining their special needs and the extent to which these are being met: Provided that the first survey shall be conducted within a period of two years from the date of commencement of this Act;
(b) to establish adequate number of teacher training institutions;
(c) to train and employ teachers, including teachers with disability who are qualified in sign language and Braille and also teachers who are trained in teaching children with intellectual disability;
(d) to train professionals and staff to support inclusive education at all levels of school education;
(e) to establish adequate number of resource centres to support educational institutions at all levels of school education;
(f) to promote the use of appropriate augmentative and alternative modes including means and formats of communication, Braille and sign language to supplement the use of one's own speech to fulfil the daily communication needs of persons with speech, communication or language disabilities and enables them to participate and contribute to their community and society;
(g) to provide books, other learning materials and appropriate assistive devices to students with benchmark disabilities free of cost up to the age of eighteen years;
(h) to provide scholarships in appropriate Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 5/11/2026 5:24:06 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15570
11 WP-43475-2025 cases to students with benchmark disability;
(i) to make suitable modifications in the curriculum and examination system to meet the needs of students with disabilities such as extra time for completion of examination paper, facility of scribe or amanuensis, exemption from second and third language courses;
(j) to promote research to improve learning; and
(k) any other measures, as may be required.
SECTION 20 Non-discrimination in employment- (1) No Government establishment shall discriminate against any person with disability in any matter relating to employment:
(2) Every Government establishment shall provide reasonable accommodation and appropriate barrier free and conducive environment to employees with disability. (3) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of disability.
SECTION 21 Equal opportunity policy. (1) Every establishment shall notify equal opportunity policy detailing measures proposed to be taken by it in pursuance of the provisions of this Chapter in the manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
(2) Every establishment shall register a copy of the said policy with the Chief Commissioner or the State Commissioner, as the case may be.
SECTION 24 Social security- (1) The appropriate Government shall within the limit of its economic capacity and development formulate necessary schemes and programmes to safeguard and promote the right of persons with disabilities for adequate standard of living to enable them to live independently or in the community.
SECTION 32 Reservation in higher educational institutions:
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 5/11/2026 5:24:06 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15570
12 WP-43475-2025 (1) All Government institutions of higher education and other higher education institutions receiving aid from the Government shall reserve not less than five per cent. seats for persons with benchmark disabilities.
(2) The persons with benchmark disabilities shall be given an upper age relaxation of five years for admission in institutions of higher education.
SECTION 33 Identification of posts for reservation: The appropriate Government shall--
(i) identify posts in the establishments which can be held by respective category of persons with benchmark disabilities in respect of the vacancies reserved in accordance with the provisions of section 34;
(ii) constitute an expert committee with representation of persons with benchmark disabilities for identification of such posts; and
(iii) undertake periodic review of the identified posts at an interval not exceeding three years.
SECTION 34 Reservation- (1) Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every Government establishment, not less than four per cent. of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength in each group of posts meant to be filled with persons with benchmark disabilities of which, one per cent. each shall be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (a), (b) and
(c) and one per cent. for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (d) and (e), namely:--
(a) blindness and low vision;
(b) deaf and hard of hearing;
(c) locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 5/11/2026 5:24:06 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15570
13 WP-43475-2025 victims and muscular dystrophy;
(d) autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness;
(e) multiple disabilities from amongst persons under clauses (a) to (d) including deaf-blindness in the posts identified for each disabilities."
15. As it can be seen, the RPwD Act, 2016 marks a significant legislative shift by expanding the rights of PwDs and broadening the recognized categories of disabilities. It ensures equality and non- discrimination, mandates reasonable accommodation, and prohibits barriers to community life, education, employment, and access to justice. It also provides for social security measures, inclusive education, reservations in higher education and employment, and protection from cruelty and exploitation. More importantly, it imposes clear responsibilities on the State and other stakeholders in this regard.
16. In view of the above provisions as contained in the RPwD Act, 2016, whether, it is open to grant relaxation in the minimum qualifying marks to the persons with benchmark disability and to what extent such relaxation could be granted came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services, 2025 SCC Online SC 481 and the Apex Court, after detailed discussion, has held as under:-
"47. The learned counsel for the appellant [SLP(C) No. 7683 of 2024], in his arguments prayed for relaxation of marks on the basis of vacancy and Office Memorandum No. 36035/02/2017-Estt (Res) [Reservation for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities] dated 15.01.2018.Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 5/11/2026 5:24:06 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15570 14 WP-43475-2025
48. The primary contention is that though the appellant has secured more marks in aggregate than the selected disabled candidates, he could not secure the minimum cut-off of 20 marks in the interview, due to which he fell out of the zone of consideration, and that inspite of there being vacancies available, the authority has not relaxed the interview minimum cut-off marks, despite there being a power to relax the same pursuant to the Office Memorandum referred to in the previous paragraph. The further case of the appellant is that even generally, prescription of any minimum cutoff for interview alone is not permissible in law.
49. We may refer to the following judgment, which would make it clear that mere existence of vacancies cannot be a ground to claim relaxation in marks. At the same time, this Court in several cases has held that laying down a minimum cutoff for interview is legally permissible. Therefore, the only question that remains to be decided is, when there are suitable executive instructions/orders giving the authority the power to relax, whether such a power should be exercised in order to relax the minimum required marks in favour of the visually impaired candidates for selection.
49.1. Neetu Devi Singh v. High Court of Allahabad wherein, it was held as under:
'In view thereof, as the reservation is provided for persons with benchmark disability, though horizontal in nature, he/she must secure minimum qualifying marks as fixed by the authority concerned. The appellant-petitioner who has failed to achieve the said benchmark as she secured 36 percent marks while qualifying marks had been fixed as 55 percent, would be denied further consideration in view of the provisions of Article 335 of the Constitution of India. It is not the case of the appellant-petitioner that any other persons with benchmark disability securing lesser marks than her, is being permitted consideration any further.' Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 5/11/2026 5:24:06 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15570 15 WP-43475-2025
50. Examining whether relaxation of cut off marks can be granted to the appellant, reliance may be placed to Taniya Malik v. High Court of Delhi, wherein it was held as under:
'Merely by the fact that some more posts were advertised and they are lying vacant, it could not have been a ground to relax the minimum marks for interview after the interview has already been held. It would not have been appropriate to do so and the High Court has objected to relaxation of minimum passing marks in viva voce examination in its reply and as the power to relax is to be exercised by the High Court and since it has opposed such a prayer on reasonable ground and the institutional objective behind such prescription, we are not inclined to direct the High Court to relax the minimum marks.''
51. In a similar case of Rajinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab, the writ petitioner (PwD) secured 48.8%, whereas the minimum aggregate passing mark for clearing mains examination was 50%, prayed for relaxation of 5% marks for PwD on the ground that there are 4 vacancies. The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the prayer of the petitioner holding as under:
"Merely because the posts advertised under Category 9 have gone abegging would by itself not clothe the writ court to issue a direction contrary to the Rules of service to fill up such posts by relaxing standards. But looking to the fact that persons with disabilities have not made it on general standards, the appropriate Government i.e. the Government of Punjab may consider the issue raised in this petition in the light of the 1995 Act and take a final decision with respect to grant or non-grant of relaxed Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 5/11/2026 5:24:06 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15570 16 WP-43475-2025 standards to persons with disabilities consistent with its duty both of affirmative action and empowerment and to maintain the efficiency required for holding judicial office and to do so within a reasonable period and preferably before the next recruitment is made to the P.C.S. (Judicial Branch)."
52. However, it is now well-established that PwD are supposed to be identified as a separate class in itself and therefore, some kind of benefits has to be extended to them with respect to eligibility which was extended similarly to other vertical reserved class. The Delhi High Court in Anamol Bhandari v. Delhi Technological University, provided for relaxation or concession marks to PwD at the same par as that of SC/ST candidates. The relevant paragraph is extracted as under:
"21. Reference to the aforesaid judgment is made by us to highlight the decision taken by the Government, and accepted by the Supreme Court that reservation for disabled is called horizontal reservation which cuts across all vertical categories such as SC, ST, OBC & General. Therefore, what was recognized was that since PwDs belonging to SC/ST categories, i.e., vertical categories enjoyed the relaxation which is provided to SC/ST categories, there is no reason not to give the same benefit/concession to those disabled who are in General Category or Other Backward Class Category as that process only would bring parity among all persons' disparity irrespective of their vertical categories. This itself provides for justification to accord same concession, viz., 10% concession to PwDs as well, in all categories which is extended to those PwDs who fall in the category of SC/ST.
22. All the aforesaid clinchingly demonstrates that the people suffering from disabilities are equally socially backward, if not more, as those belonging to SC/ST Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 5/11/2026 5:24:06 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15570 17 WP-43475-2025 categories and therefore, as per the Constitutional mandates, they are entitled to at least the same benefit of relaxation as given to SC/ST candidates.
5 2 . 1 . This Court in Aryan Raj v. State (UT) of Chandigarh affirmed the above principle and held as follows:
"3. We are of the view that the High Court is correct on the bifurcation aspect. Further, insofar as the aptitude test having to be passed is concerned, the High Court is correct in saying that no exemption ought to be granted, but we follow the principle laid down in the Delhi High Court's judgment in Anamol Bhandari v. Delhi Technological University [Anamol Bhandari v. Delhi Technological University, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 4788 : (2012) 131 DRJ 583] in which the High Court has correctly held that people suffering from disabilities are also socially backward, and are therefore, at the very least, entitled to the same benefits as given to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates. ..
5 . In our view, considering that Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates require 35% to pass in the aptitude test, the same shall apply so far as the disabled are concerned in future. Shri Gonsalves's client is, therefore, at liberty to apply afresh for the current year, in which the requisite certificate that is spoken about in the advertisement dated 31-5-2019, is furnished stating that he is fit to pursue the course in Painting or Applied Art. Further, it is clear that aptitude test pass mark, so far as disabled are concerned, is now 35%."
53. This Court in S.M.W.(C). No 2/2024 passed the following order on 21.05.2024:
"1. After our order dated 21.03.2024, we are Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 5/11/2026 5:24:06 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15570 18 WP-43475-2025 informed that thirty one specially abled candidates appeared in the main examination. We are also informed that they are not called for interview either on the ground that they are ineligible or that they have not secured minimum marks.
2. In furtherance of our order dated 21.03.2024, and to take it to its logical conclusion, we direct that if anyone of these thirty one candidates have secured the requisite minimum mark(s) as is provided for reserved (SC/ST) candidates, they shall be called for interview."
53.1. This Court in this case, thus exercising its powers, found fit to undo the discrimination of not treating PwD as a separate class which requires to be treated so as to ensure equality of results, by not specifying any relaxations or concessions which was provided to other reserved candidates.
54. This Court in Haridas Parsedia v. Urmila Shakya, dealt with whether when relaxation of marks is not permitted to SC/ST candidates who compete in the same exam, the posts reserved for these categories will go unfilled and after such unfilled carry forward posts continue to remain unfilled for the given permissible period of recruitment, these reserved posts would get unreserved and would be available to general category candidates and that this would frustrate the policy decision taken by the State under Article 16(4) for enabling the SC/ST candidates to be appointed in the posts reserved for them. This Court held that under Article 309, Rules relaxation power is available to the government, the exercise of that power can be either by a General Administrative order or by special administrative order and hence, relaxation/concession of marks were permissible.
55. This Court in S.M.W.(C) No. 2/2024 also issued directions to the High Court on 07.11.2024, that while making recruitment to judicial service, they ought to provide separate qualifying marks for PwBD in the Preliminary and Main Examinations. This Court also Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 5/11/2026 5:24:06 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15570 19 WP-43475-2025 observed that the qualifying marks should ordinarily be the same as for SC/ST candidates or can even be lower if so prescribed by the relevant Rules. If the Rules are silent, then the competent authority can lay down such qualifying marks.
56. It is also pertinent to point out at this juncture that pursuant to the order of this Court dated 07.11.2024, the Delhi High Court has been providing reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities on reserved post in judicial service. Further, the copy of the minutes of the meeting of Examination Committee held on 11.12.2024, proceeds to state that the order passed by this Court issuing directions governing the selection of candidates to the District Judiciary across the country has been perused and accordingly, separate qualifying marks for persons with benchmark disabilities at different stages of the examinations have been provided under the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 and Delhi Judicial Service Rules, 1970, besides providing separate cut-off for persons with benchmark disabilities at various stages of the selection process. It also states that this High Court is providing the benefit of reservation to persons with benchmark disabilities in terms of the Gazette Notification dated 04.01.2021 issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan), whereby various disabilities including blindness and low vision, have been identified to be suitable for the post of Judicial Officers.
5 7 . In the present case, the High Court though gave relaxation of marks to candidates belonging to SC/ST in written examinations (both prelims and mains), but it explicitly deemed not to give any relaxation to candidates from the other categories in the interview. The above direction passed by this court in a connected matter also deemed not to specify any minimum qualifying mark separately in interview for any categories."
[Emphasis Supplied]
17. Thus, the Apex Court, in the aforesaid judgment, while holding Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 5/11/2026 5:24:06 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15570 20 WP-43475-2025 that relaxation in minimum cutoff marks to the persons with benchmark disability being permissible held that people suffering from disabilities are equally socially backward, if not more, as those belonging to SC/ST categories and therefore, as per the constitutional mandates, they are entitled to at least the same benefit of relaxation as given to SC/ST candidates.
18. In the case in hand, the policy decision taken by the state to extend the benefit of relaxation in the minimum qualifying marks to the persons with benchmark disability to the extent of 10% at par with SC, ST, OBC and EWS candidates being in conformity with the proposition of law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of In Ref:(supra) and therefore, the same cannot be said to be arbitrary, illegal or irrational.
19. In view of the above discussions and considerations, the petition being bereft of merit is hereby dismissed.
(AMIT SETH) JUDGE ar Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 5/11/2026 5:24:06 AM