Persons With Higher Disability To Be Preferred In Public Employment: MP High Court Quashes Recruitment Process For Violating RPwD Act

Referring to Karnataka High Court's judgement in State of Karnataka and others Vs. Ms. Latha H N (2024), Justice Subodh Abhyankar observed, “Thus, taking a clue from the aforesaid decision which has succinctly dealt with the prevalent practice relating to the appointments of disabled, it is found that in the case at hand, it is not the case of the respondents that the persons with higher disability would not be able to perform the job as is required for the post advertised. So far as the preference to be given to persons having higher percentage in the exam, this court is of the considered opinion that there is a high probability that when a person suffers from higher percentage of disability, his chances to excel in academics also reduce substantially, hence the condition no.4 of the advertisement dated 23.07.2024 (Annexure-R/3) as reproduced above is also runs counter to the spirit of the Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016.”

Background

As per the factual matrix of the case, the petitioner, a 19-year-old girl is suffering from 92.5% disability as well as multiple other disabilities. The petitioner is aggrieved by the selection process whereby the private respondents no. 4, 5 and 6, who also claimed to be disabled, have been selected for Class IV posts pursuant to the advertisement of July 26, 2024 issued by the department. 

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that while appointing the three private respondents who are also disabled to some degree, the respondents have totally ignored the circular of July 2018 which provides that disabled persons suffering from higher disability shall be given preference in public employment.

The Counsel further submitted that the private respondents are suffering from 75%,70% and 45% disability respectively whereas the petitioner is suffering 92.5%. In the connected writ petitions it was claimed that the two petitioners therein are suffering 100% disability whereas the two respondents are suffering 40% disability and 45% disability respectively.

Thus, it was submitted that the non-compliance of July 2018 circular has defeated the very purpose of the provisions of the Section 34 (Reservation) of RPwD Act and Rule 12 (Interchange of vacancies) of Rights of Persons With Disabilities Rules, 2017.

The Counsel also referred to State of Karnataka and others Vs. Ms. Latha H N wherein the Karnataka High Court had taken note of the fact that the respondents therein had not given preference to the persons who were suffering from higher percentage of disability. Thus, the petitioner's Counsel prayed for a direction to the State to issue fresh advertisement for appointment of disabled persons.

On the contrary, the counsel for the respondents/State said that they have complied with all the circulars issued by the Government from time to time. However, in para 6 of the reply, the respondents stated that the percentage obtained in educational qualification column 9 of merit list filed as additional documents must be given priority.

Findings

The Court perused the July 2018 circular which provided that those disabled persons suffering from higher disability shall be given the preference in public employment. With respect to the 2024 advertisement the Court noted that it has neither any reference to the July 2018 circular nor any intention regarding preference being given to the persons suffering from higher percentage of disability, provided the disability does not come in the way of the duties attached to the post. However, in some petitions, the reference of the said circular was there, but there was no intention to comply with the same.

“…the reply filed by the State is also absolutely silent about the compliance of the circular dated 03.07.2018, and although the respondents have relied upon the advertisement dated 26/7/2024 in W.P.No.41374/2024, W.P.NO.574/2025,W.P.NO.577/2025, filed as Annexure R-3, wherein there is a reference of the circulars dated 20.1.2024, 22.2.2014, 30.6.2014, 17.7.2014, 17.9.2014, 13.10.2015 and 3.7.2018, but it appears that the respondents have lost sight of the fact that it is one thing to refer a circular in the advertisement and another to actually comply with it.”, the Court said.

The Court noted that respondents had also relied upon the July 2024 advertisement wherein para 4 on preference of higher percentage obtained in the educational qualification states that if there are more candidates available than the number of posts, the basis of selection should be the percentage of marks of the candidates in the prescribed educational qualification. In case of equal marks in qualification, preference should be given to the candidate with higher age.

With regard to this aspect, the Court referred to the case of Ms. Latha HN which said, “For the purpose of preferential treatment, as between the candidates of 'low vision' and the candidates of 'absolute blindness', the priority avails to the later since they are more disadvantageously placed qua the former subject to the condition that the blindness does not come in the way of discharging duties attached to the post.”

Thus, the Court said that it is not the case of the respondents that the persons with higher disability would not be able to perform the job as is required for the post advertised.

The Court concluded that para 4 of the advertisement relied upon by the respondents runs contrary to the spirit of the Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016 since there is a high probability that when a person suffers from higher percentage of disability, his chances to excel in academics also reduce substantially.

The Court opined that the respondents have failed to comply with the July 2018 circular and its non-compliance had vitiated the entire recruitment/selection process.

Thus, the Court quashed the advertisements challenged in the respective petitions and also the appointments made thereunder for non-compliance with the provisions of RPwD Act.

“The respondents are also directed to issue fresh advertisements for appointments of the disabled persons, strictly complying with the intent, letter and spirit of the circular dated 3.7.2018, as also the observations made hereinabove, as expeditiously as possible, also ensuring that the disability does not come in the way of the duties attached to the post,” the Court said.

Case Title: Siddhi Paal Versus Kaushal Vikas Kshetriya Kaaryalaya And Others, Writ Petition No. 41374 Of 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order