Denying Public Employment To Meritorious Disabled Candidates Due To Partial Disability In Some Other Body Part Bad In Law: Rajasthan HC

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a batch of appeals moved by the State against an order ruling in favour nursing candidates who were meritorious in the reserved category of “40% or more disability in one leg” but were rejected on account of suffering from some other deformity in other leg/body part.

In doing so the court observed act of the State of denying appointment on this ground was bad in law.

Referring to the provisons of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Rajasthan Rights of Persons with Disability Rules, 2017 and Rajasthan Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules, 2011 a  division bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Kuldeep Mathur said:

"We find that the action(s) of appellant-State has resulted in exclusion of eligible and meritorious candidates belonging to the category of “persons with special abilities” and, therefore, the same is contrary to the purpose and object which the legislature intended to achieve by bringing these special beneficial enactments, that is, non-discrimination, full and effective participation and inclusion in society and equality of opportunity". 

It said that the Section 3 of the RPwD Act mandates that the 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. It said that if the State's action in denying appointment to the respondent candidates despite their percentage of disability of 40% or more being approved, based on the Medical Board's findings, in relation to minor deformity in other body parts is accepted, it would go against the object of RPwD Act. 

The court said that a partial deformity/ shortening/ weakening in any other body part did not render a candidate ineligible for the post when he/she was capable of performing all duties and functions of that post. It further said:

“In the opinion of this Court, if a person is suffering from disability to a certain extent in other leg or body part the same by any stretch of imagination cannot be construed to mean that the candidate shall not be fit to perform his/her duty. Partial deformity/ shortening/ weakening of muscular strength in other body part would not render a person ineligible to be appointed on the advertised post, particularly when he/she is capable of performing all the duties and functions attached to the advertised post.The intention of the legislation in bringing the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is to ensure full participation of the people with disabilities in public employment. A welfare state is under an obligation to ensure that the person suffering from disabilities should not be deprived from public employment despite their possessing eligibility and merit to hold the post on hyper-technical grounds or for ipse-dixit reasons.”

Background

The single bench decision was rendered in a bunch of writ petitions filed by the meritorious candidates for the posts of Nurse and/or Women health workers who did not appear in the selection list despite scoring more than some of the other people appearing in that list. It was stated that on account of deformity in some other body-part, apart from their 40% or more disability in one leg, they were not considered eligible for the post. Against this the candidates moved before the single judge of the high court. 

The single bench observed that denial of fair opportunity in public appointment on account of minor additional deformity amounted to violation of the RPwD Act 2016 the  Rajasthan Rights of Persons with Disability Rules, 2017. Resultantly, the State was directed to prepare a fresh selection list including eligible petitioners. Against this the State filed appeals before the division bench. 

After perusing all the applicable laws and records, the Court opined that a person suffering from disability to a certain extent in other leg or body part could not be construed as unfit for performing his/her duty.

It noted that disability certificates issued in favour of the respondents indicates that the percentage of disability expressed/disclosed by the doctors in the medical examination report(s)/disability certificate(s) issued in favour of the candidates is with reference to a particular leg/limb only. There is nothing on record to establish/indicate the percentage of disability suffered by the respondents in other leg/other body part, it said. 

"In view of aforesaid discussion, the action of the appellantState in denying appointment to the respondents under the PH category (PH-OL category) is declared bad in the eye of law," the court said. 

Accordingly, the special appeals were dismissed, and the State was directed to issue a fresh selection list including eligible candidates.

Case Title: State of Rajasthan & Anr. v Sunita, and other connected appeals

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 76

Click Here To Read/Download Order