Bombay High Court
Shabana Rashid Pinjari vs Maharashtra Public Service Commission ... on 8 April, 2025
Author: M.S. Karnik
Bench: M.S. Karnik
2025:BHC-AS:16701-DB
Digitally signed
ARUNA by ARUNA
SANDEEP
SANDEEP TALWALKAR
TALWALKAR Date: 2025.04.09
20:51:33 +0530 WP4023.2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4023 OF 2025
Shabana Rashid Pinjari.
Age : 41 years, Occ: Nil,
Residing at : 302, Al Sufiyan Flat,
Savera Hotel, Amber Tower,
Ahmedabad, Gujrat- 380055. ... Petitioner.
Versus
Maharashtra Public Service Commission,
Through its Chairman,
having officer at - Trishul Gold Field,
Plot No. 34, Sector 11,
Opp. Sarovar Vihar, CBD Belapur,
Navi Mumbai 400 614. ... Respondent.
****
Dr. Uday Warunjikar i/b. Mr. Siddhesh Pilankar, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni a/w. Mr. Siddharth Shitole, for Respondent-
MPSC.
****
CORAM : M.S. KARNIK AND
ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.
DATE : 8th APRIL, 2025
JUDGMENT (ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J)
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and by consent of the
Advocates representing the respective parties, petition is taken up for
final hearing.
WP4023.2025.odt
2. Petitioner, battling and surmounting debility against visual
impairment (100% blindness), has filed the present Petition invoking the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
Factual Matrix :
3. Respondent published an advertisement No. 01/2023 dated
20.01.2023, inviting online registration of applications from eligible
candidates for the Maharashtra Subordinate Group-B and Group-C
Services Combined Preliminary Examination-2023 ("said
advertisement"). Supplementary advertisement bearing Advertisement
No. 111/2023 was published on 13.10.2023
4. In response to the said advertisement, Petitioner being 100%
permanently visually impaired ( blind) , on 30.01.2023 applied for the
post of Clerk-Typist (Marathi - English)-2023 under the Person with
Disability category .
5. Said advertisement, required candidates to submit preferences
online for the appointing authority i.e. Administrative Department
(Pradhikaran Vibhag)". On account of her disability, Petitioner took
assistance from a person at the internet cafe to fill the preference form.
While selecting the preference option, person from internet cafe assisting
WP4023.2025.odt
Petitioner, inadvertently selected the option of "no preference" in the
preference list for selecting the appointing authority. Petitioner was
oblivion of the said error. Petitioner successfully cleared the
preliminary as well as mains examination in one attempt with a total
score of 192.48.
6. Upon being informed of the error committed, in selecting the
option for the appointing authority, Petitioner immediately by her letter
dated 28.02.2025, brought the said error to the notice of the Respondent
and requested for indulgence to correct the said error by editing the said
option to give her choice of preference for the appointing authority.
Petitioner did not receive any response to the letter dated 28.02.2025, as
such Petitioner made another representation dated 03.03.2025 to the
Respondent. National Association for the Blind (NAB) an organization
working for the upliftment of individuals with visual impairment, made
a similar request to the Respondent to consider affording an opportunity
to the Petitioner to edit her preference for appointing authority.
7. Vide reply dated 06.03.2025, Respondent rejected the request of
the Petitioner. Ground for rejection was that the clause/s of the said
advertisement / examination scheme did not permit modifying /
changing the option in respect of the preference for appointing authority.
WP4023.2025.odt
8. Petitioner is thus before this Court seeking the following
substantial relief :
"a) Be pleased to call for records and proceedings of the
advertisement No 01/2023 and the supplementary advertisement
No. 111/2023 and the letter dated 6th March 2025 issued by the
respondent herein thereby rejecting the request of correction of
error in the preference form of the petitioner and after going
through the same and satisfying about its legality, validity and
propriety, be pleased to quash and set aside the letter dated 6th
March 2025 and further direct the respondent to provide one
opportunity to the petitioner to correct the error made in the
preference form as per the terms and conditions as this Hon'ble
High court may deem fit and proper;"
9. Respondent appeared through learned Advocate Mr. Ashutosh
Kulkarni and has opposed the petition.
SUBMISSIONS:
10. Dr. Uday Warunjikar, learned Advocate on behalf of the Petitioner
has advanced following arguments :
(a) Petitioner deserves an an opportunity to correct / edit
WP4023.2025.odt
the preference of appointing authority, considering her
disability.
(b) Error in excising the "no preference" of appointing
authority, was attributable to the disability of the Petitioner,
resulting in the Petitioner requiring assistance to fill the online
form, by taking assistance of the person at the internet cafe.
(c) By Press Release dated 21.02.2025 and 04.03.2025,
Respondent had extended the deadline for submitting the
"Appointing authorities Preferences" for the post of clerk-
typist under the Maharashtra Group-C Services Main
Examination-2023 (Clerk-Typist Cadre), upto 06.03.2025.
Request for correction / editing the preference of appointing
authority, made by the Petitioner was on 28.02.2025 and
03.03.2025, being within the extended timeline, Respondent
ought to have considered the request of the Petitioner.
(d) Petitioner being eligible and having successfully
cleared the preliminary and mains examination with score
192.48, the Petitioner ought not be denied of exercising her
preference of appointing authority, more so when the error was
attributable to the Petitioner's disability.
WP4023.2025.odt
(e) Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the
case of Ms. Shanta Digamber Sonawane v/s. Union of India &
Anr.1
11. On the other hand, Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni, learned Advocate for
the Respondent, apart from advancing oral submissions has placed on
record his written notes of arguments. Shri Kulkarni submits as under :
(a) Neither the recruitment rules nor the examination
scheme makes a provision for a candidate to seek or enable the
Respondent to allow any modification in the preference of
appointing authority, having opted for the same. Reliance is
placed on the terms of the said advertisement, clause No. 2.2,
2.10 and 2.11 of the Examination Scheme.
(b) Respondent had rejected Petitioner's application
dated 28.02.2025 and 03.03.2025, by letter dated 06.03.2025
pointing out the clauses prohibiting any change in the
preference for the appointing authority, subsequent to the
exercise of the preference option.
(c) Said advertisement for preliminary examination as
well as mains examination provide that the final results of the
1 (Civil Writ Petition No. 10813 of 2023)
WP4023.2025.odt
examination would be declared as per the Examination
Scheme published on the website of the Respondent. General
instructions to candidates published by the Respondent and
Clause 3(6) of the Declaration dated 26.02.2025 published on
website of the Respondent notified the candidates that after
the specified period, request for change or submission of
preference shall not be entertained. Said information was
available on the website of the Respondent, thus in public
domain .
(d) According to the Respondent, Clause 10.4.1(4) of the
said advertisement mentions that candidates held eligible for
mains examination are entitled to give preference from the
options which were given by them at the time of preliminary
examination. Petitioner had given one option at the time of
preliminary examination viz, Maharashtra Hindi, Sindhi,
Gurarathi Sahitya Academy as Appointing Authority.
However, at the time of mains examination, the Petitioner did
not select the said option and rather selected option "no
preference". In such circumstances, the Respondent was
unable to accept the contention of the Petitioner that the same
was a mistake.
WP4023.2025.odt
(e) Decision of this Court in the case of Shanta Sonawane
(supra) was on different sets of facts as such not applicable to
the case in hand.
12. From the rival contentions of the parties, the question that falls for
consideration is whether the request of the Petitioner for correcting /
editing the "preference of appointing authority" can be afforded to the
Petitioner ?
POSITION OF LAW
13. Until 2016, the prevailing disability law in India was the Person
with Disability Act, 1995. India ratified the United Nations Convention
on the Rights of Person of disability and the Person with Disability Act,
1995 was replaced with Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016,
(RPwD Act) which law seeks to promote the inclusion of persons with
disability by expanding the legal definition of disability. RPwD Act
confers an obligation on the State to ensure that persons with disabilities
enjoy the right to equality, life with dignity and respect for his or her
integrity, equally with others, as also to ensure equal opportunity to
persons with disability.
14. Section 2(s) of RPwD Act defines a person with disability. Section
2(y) of RPwD Act defines 'reasonable accommodation'. Sections 2(s)
WP4023.2025.odt
and 2(y) are transcribed herein below :
"2(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;
2(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;"
15. Reference to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
respect of the matters pertaining to the rights of person with disability
would be useful.
(i) Vikas Kumar v/s. Union Public Service Commission &
Ors.2 was a case of denial of a scribe to the candidate having
disability in the form of dysgraphia (writer's cramp), who was
aspirant in 2018 Civil Services Examination. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court clarified the meaning and scope of reasonable
accommodation. In paragraphs nos. 43 to 48 the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has observed as under :
"43 At the heart of this case lies the principle of
2 AIR 2001 SC 2447
WP4023.2025.odt
reasonable accommodation. Individual dignity
undergirds the RPwD Act, 2016 . Intrinsic to its
realization is recognizing the worth of every person as
an equal member of society. Respect for the dignity of
others and fostering conditions in which every
individual can evolve according to their capacities are
key elements of a legal order which protects, respects
and facilitates individual autonomy. In seeking to
project these values as inalienable rights of the
disabled, the RPwD Act, 2016 travels beyond being
merely a charter of non-discrimination. It travels
beyond imposing restraints on discrimination against
the disabled. The law does this by imposing a positive
obligation on the State to secure the realization of
rights. It does so by mandating that the State must
create conditions in which the barriers posed by
disability can be overcome. The creation of an
appropriate environment in which the disabled can
pursue the full range of entitlements which are
encompassed within human liberty is enforceable at
law. In its emphasis on substantive equality, the
enactment of the legislation is a watershed event in
providing a legal foundation for equality of opportunity
to the disabled.
44 As a social construct, disability encompasses
features broader and more comprehensive than a
medical condition. The RPwD Act, 2016 recognizes
that disability results in inequality of access to a range
of public and private entitlements. The handicaps
which the disabled encounter emerge out of disability's
engagement with the barriers created by prejudice,
discrimination and societal indifference. Operating as
restraining factors, these barriers have origins which
can be traced to physical, social, economic and
psychological conditions in society. Operating on the
WP4023.2025.odt
pre-existing restraints posed by disability, these
barriers to development produce outcomes in which the
disabled bear an unequal share of societal burdens. The
legislation has recognized that remedies for the barriers
encountered by the disabled are to be found in the
social environment in which they live, work and co-
habit with others. The barriers encountered by every
disabled person can be remedied by recognizing
comprehensive rights as inhering in them; rights which
impose duties and obligations on others.
45 The principle of reasonable accommodation
acknowledges that if disability as a social construct has
to be remedied, conditions have to be affirmatively
created for facilitating the development of the disabled.
Reasonable accommodation is founded in the norm of
inclusion. Exclusion results in the negation of
individual dignity and worth or they can choose the
route of reasonable accommodation, where each
individuals' dignity and worth is respected. Under this
route, the "powerful and the majority adapt their own
rules and practices, within the limits of reason and
short of undue hardship, to permit realization of these
ends."
46 In the specific context of disability, the
principle of reasonable accommodation postulates that
the conditions which exclude the disabled from full and
effective participation as equal members of society
have to give way to an accommodative society which
accepts difference, respects their needs and facilitates
the creation of an environment in which the societal
barriers to disability are progressively answered.
Accommodation implies a positive obligation to create
conditions conducive to the growth and fulfilment of
the disabled in every aspect of their existence -
WP4023.2025.odt
whether as students, members of the workplace,
participants in governance or, on a personal plane, in
realizing the fulfilling privacies of family life. The
accommodation which the law mandates is
'reasonable' because it has to be tailored to the
requirements of each condition of disability. The
expectations which every disabled person has are
unique to the nature of the disability and the character
of the impediments which are encountered as its
consequence.
47 For instance, for a visually impaired person,
the reasonable accommodation she requires might
consist of screen magnification software or a screen
reader [which can speak out the content on a computer
screen in a mechanical voice]. It might also consist of
content being made available in Braille and a sighted
assistant. In the same way, for someone with a hearing
impairment, reasonable accommodation could consist
of speech-to-text converters, access to sign language
interpreters, sound amplification systems, rooms in
which echo is eliminated and lip-reading is possible.
Similarly, for a person with dyslexia, reasonable
accommodation could consist of access to computer
programmes suited to meet their needs and
compensatory time.
48 Failure to meet the individual needs of every
disabled person will breach the norm of reasonable
accommodation. Flexibility in answering individual
needs and requirements is essential to reasonable
accommodation. The principle contains an aspiration to
meet the needs of the class of persons facing a
particular disability. Going beyond the needs of the
class, the specific requirement of individuals who
belong to the class must also be accommodated. The
WP4023.2025.odt
principle of reasonable accommodation must also
account for the fact that disability based discrimination
is intersectional in nature. The intersectional features
arise in particular contexts due to the presence of
multiple disabilities and multiple consequences arising
from disability. Disability therefore cannot be truly
understood by regarding it as unidimensional.
Reasonable accommodation requires the policy makers
to comprehend disability in all its dimensions and to
design measures which are proportionate to needs,
inclusive in their reach and respecting of differences
and aspirations. Reasonable accommodation cannot be
construed in a way that denies to each disabled person
the customization she seeks. Even if she is in a class of
her own, her needs must be met.24 While assessing the
reasonableness of an accommodation, regard must also
be had to the benefit that the accommodation can have,
not just for the disabled person concerned, but also for
other disabled people similarly placed in future."
(ii) Patan Jamal Vali v/s. State of Andhra Pradesh 3, was a case
of a woman with complete visual impairment, who was sought to
be discredited by an accused alleged of committing rape on her, on
the ground that her disability prevented her from being an eye
witness. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed the need for courts
to be cognizant of the biases the stigma faced by person with
disability.
(iii) Avani Prakash v/s. National Testing Agency(NTA) & Ors.4
3 AIR2021 SC2190
4 (2023) 2 SCC286
WP4023.2025.odt
was a case of a candidate with writer's cram being denied the one
hour compensatory time provided to person with disability while
appearing for NEET-UGC examination. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court made reference to "Tragedy of errors" that had taken place in
the said case which denied candidates' rights to reasonable
accommodation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was at a pains to
observe that the said case highlighted the lack of awareness and did
not treat the candidate with disabilities, with due sensitivity.
(iv) Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal & Anr. v.s. Union of India 5. was
a case of an employee from the CRPF who had acquired a serious
mental illness during service, was assessed by the Government
Hospital and certified as of having a permanent disability, based on
which he was declared unfit for duty. The said decision recognises
that disability itself is an evolving concept and a one-size-fits-all
approach cannot be used to identify disability.
(v) Om Rathod v/s. Director General of Health Services and
Ors.6 was a case where the candidate had a lower limb Mayopathy
exceeding 80%, despite having scored 80% and having achieved a
rank in NEET-UG was being denied MBBS programe after a
5 (2023) 2 SCC 209
6 2024 SCC Online SC 3130
WP4023.2025.odt
medical assessment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that an
approach which focuses more on disability than ability amounts to
a denial of right to reasonable accommodation and violate Articles
14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
(vi) In the case of Rajive Raturi v/s. Union of India & Ors. 7, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the rights of a person with
disabilities to accessible spaces under both Constitution and the
RPwD Act.
ANALYSIS
16. Petitioner being visually impaired (100% blindness), she having
applied for the post of Clerk -Typist under the Person with Benchmark
Disability and she having cleared the preliminary as well as mains
examination are facts which are not in dispute. Department of
Empowerment of Person with Disability, Ministry of Social Justice and
Empowerment, Government of India has issued Disability Certificate
dated 18.03.2023, certifying the Petitioner being a case of
blindness(100%).
17. Petitioner and Respondent having laid emphasis on the letter dated
06.03.2025 and the press-release dated 21.02.2025 and 04.03.2025,
contents of the said documents are extracted herein below :
7 2024 SCC Online SC 3217
WP4023.2025.odt
a) Letter dated 06.03.2025 issued by the Respondent :
"Number: 1442/Group-C Joint C.S./2023/24.
Date: 06 March, 2025
To.
Mrs. Shabana Rashid Pinjari
(E-mail ID: [email protected])
Subject: Maharashtra Group-C Services Main
Examination-2023 (Clerk-Typist Cadre)
Ref: Your representation dated 27 February, 2025
Madam,
With reference to the above representation, you
have mentioned that while submitting the appointing
authority preferences for the Clerk-Typist cadre, you
mistakenly selected the option 'No Preference.' You
have requested an opportunity to newly submit a
preference order for four appointing authority offices
mentioned in your representation. Accordingly, you
are hereby informed as follows.
2. The following has been specified in the
examination scheme for this cadre:
(i) Para 2.3. While providing options for the Clerk-
Typist cadre, candidates will be given the choice to
apply for one or more offices under the appointing
authorities, and the further recruitment process will
be conducted based on these options.
(ii) Para 2.10 The options provided by the
candidates for various cadres and/or appointing
authorities for the Clerk-Typist cadre at the time of
submitting the application for the Combined
Preliminary Examination will be considered final, and
further recruitment will be conducted accordingly.
(iii) Para 2.11 Any request for modification of the
options given for various cadres and/or appointing
authorities for the Clerk-Typist cadre in the
WP4023.2025.odt
application for the Combined Preliminary
Examination will not be entertained under any
circumstances.
3. The following has been mentioned in para 10.4.1
(4) of the advertisement for the main examination:
Candidates who qualify for the main examination
from the preliminary examination will be allowed to
submit a preference order only for the
cadre/appointing authority options they had selected
in their preliminary examination application.
4. While submitting your preliminary examination
application, you had selected only one appointing
authority office, namely Maharashtra Hindi, Sindhi,
and Gujarati Literature Academy, under the Clerk-
Typist cadre. While submitting the preference order
for this cadre, you were required to either provide a
preference order for the appointing authority office or
select the 'No Preference' option. It appears that you
selected the 'No Preference' option.
5. Regarding the submission of appointing authority-
wise preferences in this cadre, the following has been
mentioned in para 3 (6) of the press release published
on the Commission's website on 21 February, 2025:
"Under no circumstances will requests for submission
or modification of appointing authority-wise
preference orders be accepted after the prescribed
period."
6. Considering all the above provisions, your request
made through the referenced representation cannot
be accepted."
b) Press-release dated 21.02.2025:
Number: 1442/Group-C Joint Li. Typ/2023/24
Date: 21 February, 2025
-: PRESS RELEASE :-
WP4023.2025.odt
Subject: Submission of preference order for
appointing authority-wise selection in Maharashtra
Group-C Services Main Examination-2023, 'Clerk-
Typist' cadre
Ref: Advertisement Number 001/2023 and
The general merit list for the 'Clerk-Typist'
cadre in the Maharashtra Group-C Services Main
Examination-2023 has been published on the
Commission's website on 11 February, 2025.
2. To submit the preference order (Preference
Number) for the notified appointing authorities'
offices of this cadre, a web link titled 'Appointing
Authority Preferences' has been provided under the
'ONLINE FACILITIES' menu on the Commission's
website https://mpsc.gov.in. This web link will
remain active from 12:00 PM on 24 February, 2025,
to 11:59 PM on 2 March, 2025.
3. Based on the preference orders received in
the prescribed manner from candidates, the
following process will be carried out regarding the
final result/recommendations:
(1) Candidates may submit their preference
order only for the appointing authorities they
selected while submitting the preliminary
examination application form.
(2) Candidates must select a preference order
(Preference Number) or the 'No Preference' option
for the appointing authorities available via the web
link.
(3) Candidates should submit their preference
order only for the posts they are interested in. For
posts they are not interested in, they should select
the 'No Preference' option.
(4) After submitting the preference order,
candidates can save a copy by selecting the
'Download PDF' option.
(5) Only those appointing authorities for which
candidates have submitted preferences online will
be considered.
WP4023.2025.odt
(6) Under no circumstances will requests to
submit or change preference orders be accepted
after the specified period.
4. In case of any technical difficulties while
submitting appointing authority preferences,
candidates may contact the Commission at the toll-
free numbers 1800-1234-275 or 7303821822, or
via email at [email protected] within the
prescribed period.
Deputy Secretary (Post-Examination Non-Gazetted)
Maharashtra Public Service Commission
Place - Navi Mumbai.
(c) Press-release dated 04.03.2025 :
Reference No.: MIS-0120/C.R.09/2020/IT
Date: 4 March, 2025
-: PRESS RELEASE :-
Subject: Extension of the deadline for submitting
preference order for the post of
'Clerk-Typist' under Maharashtra Group-C
Services Main Examination-2023
Ref: (1) Advertisement No. 111/2023
(2) Commission's press release dated 21
February 2025
The deadline for submitting the preference
order (Preference Number) for the post of 'Clerk-
Typist' under the Maharashtra Group-C Services
Main Examination 2023 has been extended until 6
March 2025. The specified web link will be active
from 12:00 PM on 4 March 2025 to 11:59 PM on 6
March 2025.
2. The procedure and other aspects related to
submitting t2 The deadline for submitting the
preference order (Preference Number) for the post of
'Clerk-Typist' under the Maharashtra Group-C
Services Main Examination 2023 has been extended
until 6 March 2025. The specified web link will be
active from 12:00 PM on 4 March 2025 to 11:59 PM
on 6 March 2025.
WP4023.2025.odt
3. In case of any technical difficulties while
submitting the preference order, the concerned
authorities may contact the Commission's toll-free
numbers 1800-1234-275 or 7303821822, or reach
out via email at [email protected] within
the stipulated period.
Location - Navi Mumbai
Deputy Secretary,
Information Technology
Maharashtra Public Service
Commission
18. Petitioner has put forth a specific case of having taken assistance
from a person at the Internet cafe to fill the preference form and that
opting for "no preference" of appointing authority was an inadvertent
mistake on the part of the said person.
Respondent has opposed the petition on the ground that the
Petitioner having once exercised the option "no preference for
appointing authority", the Petitioner, is bound by the same. Stand of the
Respondent as disclosed in the letter dated 06.03.2025 is that they are
bound by the clause/s of advertisement/ Examination scheme and cannot
remedy the situation.
19. Respondent, rely on the terms of the said advertisement and
clause nos 2.2., 2.10 and 2.11 in the Examination Scheme, with rigidness
to contend that the same prohibits any change in the specified
preference. It is further their contention that the candidates were notified
WP4023.2025.odt
by issuance of general instructions, as such, request for change or
submission of preference beyond specified period would not be
entertained. Thus, according to the Respondent the error stemming form
Petitioner's disability, cannot be remedied. This approach of the
Respondent shows the insensitivity towards persons with disabilities.
20. The situation is not such that the error cannot be rectified or that
prejudice would be caused to anyone by rectifying the error. Respondent
is expected to look at the situation with sensitivity and flexibility. A
technical consideration can never outweigh any decision which furthers
the laudable object in enacting the RPwD Act. It is in such cases the
provisions of the RPwD Act can be made meaningful.
21. Candidates being notified of the prohibition clause/s in the
advertisement / website, need to be viewed differently to individual with
disabilities and more particularly individuals with visually impairment,
depending in the facts and circumstances of each case. Respondent has
flawed in applying the concept of Defensive awareness to the Petitioner.
On the contrary, Respondent was expected to afford an opportunity to the
Petitioner to correct the mistake in the preference of appointing
authority, for more than one reason, viz. firstly, it is not the case of the
Respondent that the mistake by the Petitioner was deliberate and
secondly the request for correction made by the Petitioner was
WP4023.2025.odt
within the extended time limit for submitting the preference order. Such
a course would have advanced the principle of "reasonable
accommodation" envisaged in the RPwD Act. Instead, the Respondent
has taken a pedantic stand, which according to us is harsh and not in
consonance with the objective of RPwD Act.
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court has time an
again observed that the legislation for disabled should not merely remain
in the statute book, rather, the spirit behind the legislation must be
applied by all authorities in its practical application. RPwD Act mandates
ensuring equal opportunities for people with disabilities by making
adjustments to meet their specific needs. In the present case the
Respondent missed an opportunity to further the cause of RPwD Act.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 81 in the case of Vikas Kumar
(supra) has observed as under :
"A generation of disabled people in India which regards
as its birthright access to the full panoply of
constitutional entitlements, robust statutory rights geared
to meet their unique needs and conducive societal
conditions needed for them to flourish and to truly
become co-equal participants in all facets of life."
23. Records of the case bears out that the Respondents had
themselves extended the time limit fixed for submitting the preference
order for notified appointing authorities by press-release dated
WP4023.2025.odt
21.02.2025 and 04.03.2025. By the said Press-release the time limit to
submit the preference order was extended till 06.03.2025. Petitioner by
her request letter dated 28.02.2025 and 03.03.2025 had made a request to
the Respondent to correct/modify the preference order. The Respondent
at this point of time ought to have come out of the proscenium arch, to
advance the concept of reasonable accommodation to the Petitioner by
affording an opportunity to correct/modify the option of preference for
selecting the appointing authorities. The deadline for submitting the said
preference order having not expired, the Respondent would have been
well within their right to consider affording an opportunity to the
Petitioner.
24. The Petitioner has cleared preliminary examination as well as
mains with a score of 192.48. Preference in the appointing authority,
would give a candidate of being comfortable in the place of workplace,
facilities available for persons with disabilities, proximity to the
residence of such candidate, etc. Giving an opportunity to the Petitioner
to edit/correct the preference option, will subserve and advance the
concept of "reasonable accommodation" guaranteed to a person with
disability under the RPwD Act.
25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avani Prakash (supra)
has observed that " It is no answer for an authority bound by the dicta of
WP4023.2025.odt
law and the Constitution, to throw up its hands in despair, instead of
attempting to remedy the injustice which is caused to a student. A judge
cannot ignore that behind the statistics a human face, reflecting the
aspirations, joy and tears of a student and her family."
26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Justice Sunanda
Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India and anr. has observed , as under:
"9. Be that as it may, the beneficial
provisions of the 1995 Act cannot be
allowed to remain only on paper for years
and thereby defeating the very purpose of
such law and legislative policy. The Union,
States, Union Territories and all those upon
whom obligation has been cast under the
1995 Act have to effectively implement it.
As a matter of fact, the role of the
governments in the matter such as this has to
be proactive. In the matters of providing
relief to those who are differently abled, the
approach and attitude of the executive must
be liberal and relief-oriented and not
obstructive or lethargic. A little concern for
this class who are differently abled can do
wonders in their life and help them stand on
their own and not remain on mercy of
others. A welfare State, that India is, must
accord its best and special attention to a
section of our society which comprises of
differently abled citizens. This is true
equality and effective conferment of equal
opportunity.
WP4023.2025.odt
27. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in identical facts in the case of
Mrs. Shanta Digambar Sonawane (supra) which was a case of a
candidate who was 100% visually impaired, frowned upon the
insensitivity shown by authorities. In paragraph-14 this Court has
observed as under :
"14. The concept of fairness in dealing with
person with disabilities is not only of treating
them equal with others but of an affirmative
action. The Supreme Court observed in Jeeja
Ghosh and Another Versus Union of India and
Others8 that the key aspect of fairness is
understanding that different individuals have
varying needs, particularly those with disabilities.
The Supreme Court, in the case of Vikash Kumar
Versus Union Public Service Commission and
Others9, elaborated the principle of Reasonable
Accommodation, which entails providing
additional support and facilities to persons with
disabilities. Simply stating that discrimination
against persons with disabilities is prohibited is
insufficient. Additional support is required to
mitigate the impact of disabilities. The principle
of Reasonable Accommodation in Section 3 of
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
(the Act of 2016) mandates both supplementary
support to individuals with disabilities and
facilitating their complete integration into society.
This principle rises above the mere prohibition of
discrimination. It means the proactive creation of
conditions conducive to the person with
8 (2016) 7SCC 761
9 (2021) 5 SCC 370
WP4023.2025.odt
disabilities. Reasonable Accommodation implies
that the needs of individuals with disabilities
must be acknowledged and remedied to a
reasonable extent, respecting their differences and
facilitating their full participation in all facets of
life. The accommodations provided by law must
be "reasonable" and tailored to the specific needs
of each individual. Failing to meet the unique
requirements of individuals with disabilities
would contravene the principle of reasonable
accommodation."
28. In view of the above. we are of the opinion in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, permitting the Petitioner to
edit/modify the preference option would be in consonance with the intent
and object of RPwD Act.
29. The Petition is therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
The impugned letter dated 6th March, 2025 is quashed and set aside. The
Respondent is directed to provide an opportunity to the Petitioner to
edit/modify the option in the preference form.
30. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. There shall be no order
as to cost.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (M.S. KARNIK, J)
