Gujarat High Court
Rathva Babubhai Karshanbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 14 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14438 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14438 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
===========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
RATHVA BABUBHAI KARSHANBHAI & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KB PUJARA(680) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,3,4,5
MR PARESHKUMAR B TRIVEDI(9926) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,3,4,5
PETITION/APPEAL WITHDRAWN/DISMISSED for the Petitioner(s) No. 2,6
MS SURBHI BHATI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 14/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed for the following prayers :
"11(a) to admit this petition and to allow the same by issuing Notice for final disposal on returnable date as the petitioners are Blind and Visually Impaired candidates;
(b) direct the respondents to equally distribute between (1) blind and low vision and (2) locomotor disability the 57 vacancies reserved for PH candidates in the recruitment of Shikshan Sahayaks for Govt.Secondary Schools pursuant to the Advertisement at Annexure-A, and to prepare separate merit-lists for the said two categories, and to give Page 1 of 22 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:30:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined appointments accordingly;
(c) to direct the respondents to reserve at least 24 vacancies for PH candidates out of the total 617 vacancies of Shikshan Sahayaks to be filled up in the Govt.Higher Secondary Schools pursuant to the Advertisement at Annexure-B read with Annexure-C, and to equally distribute such 24 vacancies between (1) blind and low vision and (2) locomotor disability, and to prepare separate merit-lists for the said two categories, and to give appointments accordingly.
(d) to direct the respondents to give appointments to the petitioners as per their merit in the category of PH candidates suffering from Blindness and Low Vision and all consequential benefits as if they were appointed along with the first candidate of the same recruitment process;
(e) to quash and set aside the impugned action of the respondents in reserving only 14 vacancies for PH candidates instead of at least 24 vacancies at the rate of 4% of the total 617 vacancies to be filled up in Govt.Higher Secondary Schools as per Annexure-B read with Annexure-C;
(f) to quash and set aside the impugned actions of the respondents in not separately reserving the vacancies of PH candidates for (1) blind and low vision and (2) locomotor disability, and in not preparing the separate merit-lists for the said two categories;
(g) PENDING THE HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL OF THIS PETITION, BE PLEASED to stay the further process of recruitment of Shikshan Sahayaks for Govt.Secondary and Page 2 of 22 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:30:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined Higher Secondary Schools as per Annexure-A, B and C;
(h) PENDING THE HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL OF THIS PETITION, BE PLEASED to direct the respondents to prepare separate merit-lists of the candidates suffering from (1) blindness and low vision and (2) locomotor disability, and to give appointments to at least 29 Visually Impaired candidates as Shikshan Sahayaks in Govt.Secondary Schools, and to at least 12 Visually Impaired Candidates as Shikshan Sahayaks in Govt.Higher Secondary Schools in the recruitment as per Annexure-A, Band C;
(i) xxxx"
2. At the outset, though this petition was preferred by six petitioners, two of them- Chenva Sanjaykumar Jayantibhai - petitioner no.2 and Patel Gopalbhai Amrutbhai
- petitioner no.6 herein have sought permission to withdraw this petition, which was permitted vide order dated 18.4.2022. Thus, this petition now, remains to be considered for petitioner nos.1,3,4 and 5 only. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for respondents.
3. The grievance raised in this petition is that the respondents are not providing at least 4% of the vacancies for Physically Handicapped, and they are also not separately providing for the vacancies reserved for (a) blind and low vision candidates, and (b) locomotor disability candidates, as Page 3 of 22 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:30:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined statutorily mandated by Section-34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 2016') 3.1. The case of the petitioners is that they are blind/visually impaired candidates. They have passed B.A./M.A. and B.Ed./M.Ed. and also passed the Teacher Aptitute Test (Secondary) and/or Teacher Aptitude Test (Higher Secondary) and therefore eligible and qualified to be appointed as Shikshan Sahayaks/Teachers in Secondary and/or Higher Secondary Schools.
3.2 That on or about 17.11.2019, the respondent no.2 issued advertisement inviting applications for filling up 1239 vacancies of Shikshan Sahayak in Secondary schools, out of which, 57 vacancies are earmarked for physically handicapped. At about the same time, the respondent no.2 issued advertisement inviting applications for filling up 557 vacancies of Shikshan Sahayak in Higher Secondary Schools, out of which, only 20 vacancies are earmarked as physically handicapped. On 21.10.2020, the respondent no.2 has issued a chart, which shows that the total vacancies are increased to 617 but the vacancies earmarked for physically handicapped are reduced to only 14 for higher secondary schools. Page 4 of 22 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:30:07 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined
4. Heard learned advocates for the parties. 4.1 Learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the Act of 2016 came into force on 19.4.2017 i.e. before the date of the advertisement impugned, in which, Section 34 provides that the government shall appoint in every government establishment, not less than 4% of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength by persons with benchmark disabilities of which, 1% each shall be reserved for (a) blind and low vision candidates (b) deaf and hard of hearing candidates (c) locomotor disability candidates and (d) autism and multiple disabilities candidates. It is submitted that in the present advertisement, only two types of disabled candidates are eligible to apply viz. (1) blind and low vision and (2) locomotor disability. Therefore, considering the above section, for secondary schools, 57 vacancies which are reserved for PH candidates are to be equally divided into the above two categories and separate merit lists for each category are required to be prepared and for higher secondary schools, atleast 24 vacancies are required to be equally distributed between the two categories and separate merit lists are required to be prepared. The same is not done in the impugned recruitment process and therefore the same is required to be quashed and set aside as they are contrary to the mandatory statutory provisions of the Act of 2016.
Page 5 of 22 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:30:07 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined 4.2 Learned advocate for the petitioners has further submitted that the National Federation of Blind, Gujarat Branch and the Blind candidates made representation to the respondent no.2 on 17.11.2019 for the said grievance to which the respondent no.2 gave reply on 21.11.2019 that it was a policy matter and his office will make appropriate proposal to the state government, however, nothing was done. It is further submitted that Rule 11(3) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 (Rules of 2017 for short), provides that "while making advertisement to fill up vacancies, every government establishment shall indicate the number of vacancies reserved for each class of persons with benchmark disabilities in accordance with the provisions of Section 34 of the Act" but the respondents have not implemented the said statutory mandatory provision in the advertisement impugned.
5. Per contra, learned AGP for the respondents-state authorities, has referred to the affidavit-in-reply and further affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents and submitted that prior to the Act of 2016 coming into force, the policy which was adopted by the state was the policy dated 3.8.2011, which was with a view to comply with the numerous provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Page 6 of 22 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:30:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined Opportunities, Protection of Rights and full participation) Act, 1995, which stipulated 3% reservation for PH candidates; thereafter the Act of 2016 came into force which revised 4% reservation for PH candidates and with a view to implement the said provisions, the state government has recently framed the new policy dated 17.9.2021. She submitted that as the previously prevalent policy was silent on the aspect of independent maintenance of ratio inter-se between categories, the same was not done and as the petitioner and other similarly situated candidates have not indicated clearly the category of PH and therefore also, it seems that the appointments have been given only upon considering the PH candidature and not upon considering the category; that the policy came into existence on 17.9.2021 and therefore, the department did not apply the division of 4% in the aforesaid advertisement; that as previously prevalent policy of 2011 was silent on the classification of the ratio of 4% into categories of disability and at that time, there was unpretentious allotment of 3% to PH category without any bifurcation and therefore the aforesaid advertisement espoused the method of 2011 policy instead of 2017; that the process of recruitment has already been concluded as the advertisement with reference to Secondary Schools was dated 19.11.2019 and Higher Secondary Schools was dated 17.11.2019; that except for the petitioner no.3, all others have Page 7 of 22 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:30:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined filled up the form and were eligible to be appointed in Secondary Schools only and also there may be other candidates who may be more meritorious than the petitioners. Learned AGP has further submitted in detail regarding the percentage of marks obtained by the petitioners and that there are more candidates who have higher merit than the petitioners. Referring to the further affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2 in pursuance to the order dated 12.12.2022 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court, she submitted that the petitioners have no locus to seek the prayers, more particularly, when the petitioners have failed to demonstrate as to how they would be entitled to appointment even if the prayers sought for are countenanced.
6. Learned AGP has relied on the decisions in the case of National Federation of the Blind V/s State of Gujarat, Chief Secretary, Government of Gujarat of this Court decided on 7.10.2021 and National Federation of the Blind V/s State of Gujarat & Anr., decided on 22.11.2014 by this Court in Writ Petition (PIL) No.46 of 2023.
7. In rejoinder, learned advocates for the petitioners has submitted that the respondents have taken a stand that in the recruitment in question, they have implemented the earlier policy of the state government laid down in G.R.dated Page 8 of 22 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:30:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined 3.8.2011 and they have not implemented the Act of 2016 which came into force on 19.4.2017 even though the advertisements in question are issued on 17.11.2019 and 19.11.2019, which shows the arbitrariness on the part of the respondents. He submitted that even in the Act of 1995, there was a provision for distribution of 3% vacancies in the three categories of disability by providing 1% for each category for which the state government has issued a G.R.dated 15.2.2001, even that is not implemented in the said recruitment process. The say of the respondents that there are more candidates who have higher merit than the concerned petitioners in their concerned subject is irrelevant for the reason that the petitioners belong to visually impaired and it is not the case of the respondents that there are more meritorious visually impaired candidates in the concerned subject and secondly even if there are more meritorious candidates, they have not come to the court and the petitioners are vigilant in making their grievances.
8. Referring to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents, learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the respondents have admitted that a total number of three posts for PH candidates were earmarked for the subject of Gujarati and all such posts are secured by candidates of locomotor disability and therefore there is clear Page 9 of 22 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:30:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined illegality committed in not giving appointment to a single candidate of visual impairment disability. Further, the respondents have admitted that all the six vacancies of PH candidates for social science subject have been filled up by the candidates of orthopaedic disability and not a single candidate of visual impairment is given the appointment and therefore also, the petitioner nos.3,4 and 5 are entitled for appointment as they are visually impaired candidates. Further, the petitioner no.3 has also applied for higher secondary section for the subject of sociology and the respondents have not given any appointment to visually impaired candidate in the three vacancies notified for PH category in the subject of sociology. Therefore, the petitioner no.3 is entitled for the appointment as visually impaired candidate for the subject of sociology in higher secondary section also. He, therefore, submitted this petition is required to be allowed with exemplary costs.
9. In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the petitioners has relied on the Act of 2016 and the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court:
(1) Beg Raj Singh V/s State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2002(0) AIJEL SC 3065.
(2) Ashok alias Somanna Gowda V/s State of Karnataka Page 10 of 22 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:30:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined reported in 1991(0) AIJEL-SC 1696.
10. I have heard the learned advocates for the parties and also perused the material placed on record.
11. The entire issue in this petition revolves around Section 34 of the Act of 2016 as, according to the petitioners, the same is not followed in the impugned advertisement. Section 34 of the Act of 2016 reads as under:
"34. Reservation -(1) Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every Government establishment, not leas 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 attach victims and muscular dystrophy;
(d) autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness;Page 11 of 22 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:30:07 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined
(e) multiple disabilities from amongst persons under clauses
(a) to (d) including deaf-blindness in the posts identified for each disabilities:
Provided that the reservation in promotion shall be in accordance with such instructions as are issued by the appropriate Government from time to time:
Provided further that the appropriate Government, in consultation with the Chief Commissioner or the State Commissioner, as the case may be, may, having regard to the type of work carried out in any Government establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notifications exempt any Government establishment from the provisions of this section."
12. Apparently, in the advertisement dated 17.11.2019 issued by the respondent no.2 herein for the posts of Shikshan Sahayak in Secondary schools and Shikshan Sahayaks in higher secondary schools, 4% of the posts for which the advertisement is issued are not reserved as per the above provision of law. The vacancies of shikshan sahayak in secondary schools were 1239, out of which, 57 vacancies were earmarked for physically handicapped and out of 557 vacancies of shikshan sahayaks, only 20 vacancies were earmarked for physically handicapped, the said vacancies were increased to 617, but the vacancies earmarked for Page 12 of 22 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:30:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined physically handicapped are reduced to only 14 for higher secondary schools. 4% of the vacancies for physically handicapped were to be provided separately for the vacancies reserved for (a) blind and low vision candidates and (b) locomotor disability candidates, which is not done. There is nothing forthcoming from the learned AGP for the respondents-authorities to negate this aspect. The stand of the learned AGP that the 2011 Rules were followed in the recruitment process cannot be accepted for the reason that the Rules of 2016 were in existence on the date of the advertisement impugned which is of the year 2019 and therefore, the said Rules of 2016 are to be followed, which is not done.
13. It is submitted by learned AGP that due to lapse of time from the year 2019 to this time, there may not be vacancies and the persons who are appointed may be affected if this petition is allowed at a belated stage. In this regard, it would be fruitful to refer to the judgment relied on by learned advocate Mr.Pujara in the case of Beg Raj Singh (supra), wherein it is observed as under:
"6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as also the learned counsel for the state and the private respondent, we are satisfied that the petition deserved to be Page 13 of 22 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:30:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined allowed. The ordinary rule of litigation is that the rights of the parties stand crystallized on the date of commencement of litigation and right to relief should be decided by reference to the date on which the petitioner entered the portals of the court. A petitioner, though entitled to relief in law, may yet be denied relied in equity because of subsequent or intervening events, i.e. the events between the commencement of litigation and the date of decision. The relief to which the petitioner is held entitled may have been rendered redundant by lapse of time or may have been rendered incapable of being granted by change in law. There may be other circumstances which render it inequitable to grant the petitioner any relief over the respondents because of the balance tilting against the petitioner on weighing inequities pitted against equities on the date of judgment. Third party interest may have been created or allowing relief to the claimant may result in unjust enrichment on account of events happening in between. Else the relief may not be denied solely on account of time lost in prosecuting proceedings in judicial or quasi-judicial forum and for no fault of the petitioner. A plaintiff or petitioner having been found entitled to a right to relief,t he court would as an ordinary rule try to place the successful party in the same position which he would have been if the wrong complained against would not have been done to him. ....."
14. The above discussion that the respondents have Page 14 of 22 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:30:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined failed to follow the provisions of the Act of 2016 brings me to the point to decide how and where to accommodate the petitioners.
15. The Civil Application no.1 of 2025 is filed stating that during the pendency of this petition, in another proceeding i.e. Writ Petition (PIL) No.46 of 2023, the Hon'ble Division Bench has passed various orders, pursuant to which the State Government has issued Circular dated 11.11.2024 and considering the same, by order dated 22.11.2024, the Hon'ble Court has directed the State Government to fill up the backlog of 21114 posts as per 4% quota of reservations for Persons with Disabilities in time-bound manner. Pursuant to the same, the respondents issued undated advertisements nos.1 to 4 of 2025 as special recruitment drive for physically handicapped candidates inviting applications from 1.4.2025 to 15.4.2025 and soon thereafter issued an announcement that the dates for submitting applications are changed and new dates would be declared later on.
16. Though it is prayed that as the present petition is arising out of the advertisement dated 19.11.2019 and the petitioners are entitled to be considered for appointments pursuant to the said advertisement and the petition is now surviving only for 4(four) petitioners, they may be given effect Page 15 of 22 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:30:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined from the date on which the first appointment as given with all consequential benefits of salary and seniority, and these reliefs are required to be granted before the respondents invite applications for filling up the backlog of physically handicapped vacancies by the special recruitment drive, the fact remains, as submitted by learned AGP that as on 10.12.2021 i.e. the date of filing of the affidavit-in-reply by the respondents-authorities, there were only two vacant posts in higher secondary in the subject of account and commerce- 1, economics-1, English-1 and there are no vacant posts available in Secondary Schools to accommodate any of the petitioners and except for the petitioner no.3, all others have filled up the form and were eligible to be appointed in secondary schools only. Considering this submission also, the petitioners cannot be appointed from the back date i.e. 19.11.2019.
17. Further, if the entire recruitment process of 19.11.2019 is disturbed by directing the respondents- authorities to implement the provisions of Section 34 of the Act of 2016 as indicated above, it will lead to chaos as many meritorious candidates who are genuinely selected and appointed as per their merits will be disturbed for not fault of theirs and also many other persons will be included in the 4% earmarked for the physically handicapped. Considering the Page 16 of 22 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:30:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok @ Somanna Gowda (supra) as relied on by learned advocate for the petitioners wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed and held in paragraph 3 that "......In view of the fact that appointments under the impugned Rules were made as back as in 1987 and only the present appellants had approached the Tribunal for relief, the case of other candidates cannot be considered as they never approached for redress within reasonable time. We are thus inclined to grant relief only to the present appellants who were vigilant in making grievance and approaching the Tribunal in time......" this petition is required to be allowed to the extent of granting the benefits of this litigation to the four petitioners herein who were vigilant and approached this Court. However, the prayer of giving the appointment to these four petitioners from the date of the impugned advertisement cannot be accepted for the fact that there is no vacancy as of that date.
18. A reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Alok Singh V/s State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., decided on 3.3.2025 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) Nos.2 of 2024 and allied matters, it is observed and held in paragraph 67.1 and 68 as under:
"67.1 Thus, after considering the pleadings, submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for all the parties, as well as Page 17 of 22 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:30:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined the legal positions and case laws, we conclude as follows:
(i) Visually impaired candidates cannot be said to be `not suitable' for judicial service and they are eligible to participate in selection for posts in judicial service.
(ii) The amendment made in Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 falls foul of the Constitution, and is hence, struck down to the extent that it does not include visually impaired persons who are educationally qualified for the post to apply therefor.
(iii) The proviso to Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) rules, 1994 relating to additional requirements, violates the equality doctrine and the principle of reasonable accommodation, and is hereby struck down in its application to differently abled persons who have the requisite educational qualifications for applying to the posts under judicial service.
(iv) Relaxation can be done in assessing suitability of candidates when enough PwD are not available after selection in their respective category, to the extent as stated in the relevant paragraphs above, and in the light of existing Rules and Official Circulars and executive orders in this regard, as in the present case.
(v) A separate cut-off is to be maintained and selection made accordingly for visually-impaired candidates as has been indicated in the relevant paragraphs in line with the Page 18 of 22 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:30:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined judgment in Indra Sawhney.
(vi) For the purpose of rights and entitlements of persons with disabilities, particularly in employment, and more specifically in respect of the issues covered in this judgment, there can be no distinction between Persons with Disabilities (PwD) and Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD).
VII RESULT
68. In the upshot:
(i) Visually impaired candidates are eligible to participate in selection of the posts under the judicial service and hence, Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) rules, 1994 is struck down insofar as it excludes visually impaired and low vision candidates for appointment in judicial service.
(ii) Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) rules, 1994 to the extent of prescribing additional requirement of either a three-year practice period of securing an aggregate score of 70% in the first attempt, is struck down insofar as it applies to PwD candidates. The said Rule will be applicable to the PwD candidates insofar as it prescribes the educational and other qualifications as eligibility criteria including the minimum aggregate score of 70% (with relaxation as may be determined like in the case of SC/ST candidates), but without the requirement of either that it Page 19 of 22 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:30:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined should be in the first attempt or that they should have three years' practice. As a sequel, the impugned order dated 01.04.2024 passed by the High Court and the consequential notification dated 17.11.2023 issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, are set aside as against the PwD candidates and the Appellant viz. Ayush Yardi and similarly placed persons, are entitled to be considered for participating in the selection process in the light of this decision.
(iii) The order of the High Court dated 11.01.2024 and the notification dated 18.02.2023 are set aside as far as the Appellant viz., Alok Singh and similarly placed persons are concerned. The Appellant and similarly placed persons who had participated in the selection process, are entitled to be considered in the light of this decision, and they may be appointed, if they are otherwise eligible in the vacant posts after applying applicable relaxation as provided for in the executive orders.
(iv) The writ Petitioners in WP(C) Nos.484 and 494 of 2024, who contend that separate cut-off was not applied in the Rajasthan Judicial Service Preliminary Examinations, and consequently were not selected for the main examination, shall be entitled to be considered in the light of this decision in the next recruitment, if they so apply to the post notified along with the post unfilled now and carried forward to the next recruitment by maintaining a separate cut off and merit list for PwDs.
(v) The respective authorities are directed to proceed with Page 20 of 22 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:30:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined the selection process for appointment of the judicial officers, in the light of this decision and complete the same, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three months, from today."
19. In the result, this petition is partly allowed. As the petitioners have suffered due to the lapse on the part of the respondents-authorities and the petitioners were vigilant and have approached this Court to redress their grievances, however, as the fruits of this litigation cannot be given retrospective effect which will affect the genuine meritorious candidates for no fault of theirs, the interest of justice and striking of balance would be met if the respondents- authorities are directed to give appointment to these four petitioners in the special recruitment drive which is undertaken pursuant to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court by placing them at the top of seniority list. Order accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Civil Application stands disposed of.
20. Though, after considering the statutory provision and the legal position, this Court passed the above order, before parting, this Court would like to express concern on certain points regarding the practical difficulties which would be faced by such benchmark disabled persons at work. The Page 21 of 22 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:30:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined persons with benchmark disabilities may have certain limitations to perform their duties at workplace. Though the legislations are enacted to provide equal opportunity to such persons and to see that they may live their life with dignity by working in government organizations, the other side of the coin remains that the persons with such benchmark disabilities may face many practical difficulties in discharging their duty in efficient manner. If such persons are offered reservation in those categories in which they can do their work with ease and their challenges may not increase, the purpose of legislation would serve in its real spirit. It would be in the larger interest, if the concerned authority of the government, at the time of issuing notifications based on the Act of 2016, take note of the proviso to Section 34 of the Act of 2016, and having regard to the type of particular work being carried out in any government establishment may consider such situation in appropriate manner in view of the provisions of this section. It is expected that such clarification will be done in future at the time of issuance of notifications/advertisements, so that it will act as a `candle in the dark' to such disabled candidates in its true spirit rather than paving way for more challenges.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) SRILATHA Page 22 of 22 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:30:07 IST 2025