Candidate With 90% Hearing Impairment Erroneously Not Considered Under PwD Category: Rajasthan HC Directs Appointment On Humanitarian Grounds
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the State to grant appointment to the petitioner, who had 90% hearing impairment and had applied for the post of Safai Karamchari in 2018 but due to some software error was not considered for the draw of lots under the PwD category, resulting in his non-appointment.Justice Arun Monga opined that the petitioner's appointment might appear unfair since he...
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the State to grant appointment to the petitioner, who had 90% hearing impairment and had applied for the post of Safai Karamchari in 2018 but due to some software error was not considered for the draw of lots under the PwD category, resulting in his non-appointment.
Justice Arun Monga opined that the petitioner's appointment might appear unfair since he did not participate in the draw of lots for the post under PwD category, however, such were the vagaries of litigation in which sometimes candidates fetch fortuitous benefits.
“…this Court is conscious of the fact that the petitioner did not participate in the draw of lots, and therefore, it may appear to be unfair that without participating in the draw of lots, he is being given benefit by virtue of the mandamus of this Court of being appointed on the post. Such are the vagaries of the litigation that sometimes, it results in fortuitous benefits in favour of the candidates as is the case herein, coupled with the fact that petitioner deserves humanitarian outlook being a disabled person.”
The State had issued advertisement for the post in 2018 for which the selection was to be made through a lottery system. The petitioner had applied for the post under both SC and PwD category on account of his 90% hearing impairment. However, erroneously his candidature was considered only under the SC category and not PwD category.
Consequently, his name did not appear for appointment in the SC category but it was his submission that since the number of vacancies under the PwD category were far more than the number of applicants, he would have gotten the appointment had there been no error.
Representation was made to the State wherein it was admitted that due to a software error, petitioner's name of wrongly categorized. Despite this admission, no corrective action was taken promoting the filing of this petition.
After hearing the contentions, the Court took into account the admission on part of the State and ruled that the petitioner's claim of being treated as a physically handicapped could not be rejected since there was no dispute regarding his disability. However, it was opined that,
“…at this stage, instead of passing any drastic directions for conducting the entire draw of lots of the Safai Karamcharis all over again, suffice to meet the ends of justice and to balance the equities, the claim of the petitioner be rather accepted for his appointment as Safai Karamchari in the Physically Handicapped category.”
The Court stated that the appointment might seem unfair but considering the nature of litigation and 90% hearing impairment of the petitioner, a humanitarian outlook was needed.
Accordingly, the State was directed to grant appointment to the petitioner within 30 days, considered effective from the day when other candidates were appointed.
Title: Shri Pankaj Vasita v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 107
