[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Asha Dhondiram Shinde Alias Ashwini ... vs Union Of India Through Secretary, ... on 27 February, 2026
Author: R.I. Chagla
Bench: R.I. Chagla
2026:BHC-OS:5384-DB
WP-3672-25.doc
Sharayu Khot & JSN.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3672 OF 2025
Asha Dhondiram Shinde ...Petitioner
Digitally
signed by
JITENDRA
JITENDRA SHANKAR
SHANKAR NIJASURE
NIJASURE Date:
2026.02.27
Versus
16:37:12
+0530
Union of India & Anr. ...Respondents
----------
Dr. Uday Warunjikar a/w Ms. Sakshi Inamdar and Mr. Jenish Jain
i/by Mr. Sumit S. Kate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Respondents.
----------
CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA J
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J
Reserved on : 16TH FEBRUARY 2026.
Pronounced on : 27TH FEBRUARY 2026.
JUDGMENT :
(Per R.I. Chagla, J.)
1. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner is impugning the
rejection letter dated 22nd August 2024 (Exh.G to the Petition) of the
candidature of the Petitioner for the post of Assistant pursuant to
advertisement No. RRC - 01/2019 issued by Respondent No. 1 as
well as seeking a direction to Respondent No. 2 to consider the
candidature of the present Petitioner for the post of Assistant in the
establishment of Respondent No. 2 within such time as this Court
:: 1 ::
WP-3672-25.doc
may deem fit and proper.
2. Further direction is sought to Respondent No. 2 to
keep one post vacant for the post of Assistant as per advertisement
No. RRC - 01/2019.
3. The Petitioner is a blind person having 75%
permanent blindness. The copy of the disability certificate of the
Petitioner is annexed at Exh.A to the Petition.
4. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are State within the
meaning of "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
5. A few relevant facts are set out as under :-
i. On 23rd February 2019 an advertisement No.CEN RRC
- 01 / 2019 was published by Respondent No. 1 for
various posts under Indian Railways.
ii. The Petitioner pursuant to the advertisement appeared
for the examination of class D grade. The Petitioner
:: 2 ::
WP-3672-25.doc
filled the form for the said post and accordingly, Admit
Card was issued to the Petitioner.
iii. The Petitioner downloaded the examination time and
date intimation letter from the website of the
Respondent No. 2.
iv. The Petitioner appeared for the examination and
passed the said examination with gracious marks.
v. The Petitioner received a call letter for the document
verification and medical verification. Accordingly, the
document verification was carried out by the
Respondent No. 2 on 14th February 2024.
vi. On 22nd August 2024, vide the rejection letter, the
Respondent No. 2 informed the Petitioner that the
Petitioner had been disqualified on the ground that
the board from which the Petitioner had passed its
matriculation exam was not recognized and the
Petitioner was not considered as having done her
:: 3 ::
WP-3672-25.doc
matriculation. The said rejection letter dated 22nd
August 2024 has accordingly been impugned in the
present Writ Petition.
6. Dr. Uday Warunjikar, the learned Counsel for the
Petitioner has submitted that the State Government Resolution dated
28th February 2007 has given recognition to the Uttama course,
which the Petitioner had successfully completed, having equivalence
to that of the SSC. He has submitted that in view thereof, the
Petitioner is considered to have matriculated.
7. Dr. Warunjikar has referred to the three courses
mentioned in the Government Resolution dated 28th February 2007
of the Mumbai Hindi - Vidyapeeth, Mumbai, viz. Uttama, Bhasha
Ratna and Sahitya Sudhakar, which is mentioned to have equivalence
with SSC, Inter (12th) and B.A. respectively.
8. Dr. Warunjikar has submitted that the Petitioner being
a disabled person, viz. having 75% life blindness is in any event to be
afforded reasonable accommodation in her eligibility to the post of
Group D Level 1 in the Indian Railways.
:: 4 ::
WP-3672-25.doc
9. Dr. Warunjikar has placed reliance upon the judgment
of the Supreme Court in Sujata Bora Vs. Coal India Limited & Ors. 1,
wherein the Supreme Court had considered the case of the Appellant,
who had appeared for Initial Medical Examination ("IME"), and had
been declared unfit on the ground that she was not only suffering
from visual disability, but also from residuary partial hemiparesis.
The Supreme Court had considered the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short "RPwD Act") as well as the law laid
down by the Supreme Court regarding Fundamental Rights and
Directive Principles of State Policy as well as the UN Guiding
Principles on Business and Human Rights (Guiding Principles) as
endorsed by the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2011, on
the aspect of 'Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights'. He
has submitted that the Supreme Court in its judgment has placed
reliance on its prior decisions in Omkar Ramchandra Gond Vs. The
Union of India2; Om Rathod Vs. Director General of Health Services3
and Ch. Joseph Vs. Telangana SRTC4, which have all considered in
the context of the provisions of RPwD Act, the concept of " reasonable
1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 58
2 2024 INSC 775
3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3130
4 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1592
:: 5 ::
WP-3672-25.doc
accommodation". In Omkar Ramchandra Gond (Supra), Section 2(y)
of RPwD Act has been referred to and which defines "reasonable
accommodation" to mean 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. In Ch. Joseph
(supra) the principle of "reasonable accommodation" is held to have
been recognised as an aspect of substantive equality under Articles
14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
10. Dr. Warunjikar has submitted that in Rajive Raturi
Vs. Union of India5, which has also been relied upon in Sujata Bora
(supra), it has been held that the duty to provide reasonable
accommodation is an ex nunc duty, which means that it is
enforceable from the moment an individual with an impairment
needs it in a given situation (workplace, school, etc.) in order to
enjoy her or his rights on an equal basis in a particular context.
11. Dr. Warunjikar has submitted that the Supreme
Court has accordingly held that it is abundantly clear that the rights
5 (2024)16 SCC 654
:: 6 ::
WP-3672-25.doc
of persons with disabilities have to be viewed from the prism of
Corporate Social Responsibility in order to protect and further such
rights. True equality at the workplace can be achieved only with the
right impetus given to disability rights as a facet of Corporate Social
Responsibility. In Sujata Bora (supra), the Supreme Court Bench has
held that they are sure that the Chairman of Coal India will provide a
suitable position/posting commensurate with the ability of the
Appellant, and in such circumstances, the Appellant be provided a
suitable desk job with a separate computer and keyboard, as per
universal design as defined under Section 2(ze) of the RPwD Act. The
Chairman of Coal India Limited was directed to post the Appellant at
North Eastern Coalfields Coal India Ltd., having an office at
Margherita, Tinsukia, Assam.
12. Dr. Warunjikar has referred to the case relied upon
by the Respondents in its Affidavit in Reply to the Petition viz. Dhiraj
S/o Narayan Narekar Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation6. The Full Bench had been constituted pursuant to the
referral order dated 2nd August, 2023 passed in Writ Petition No.
5068 of 2019, where the Bench of this Court found discord between
6 WP 5068 of 2019 order dated 27th January 2025 Full Bench (Nagpur Bench)
:: 7 ::
WP-3672-25.doc
the view taken in Vijay Rai v. Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation (MSRTC)7 and Pravin S/o. Sahebrao Deshmukh v. Vice
Chairman and Managing Director, MSRTC & Anr. 8 In these judgments
this Court was not considering the case of a disabled person, but a
candidate who had sought employment in MSRTC. He has submitted
that these cases are clearly distinguishable from the present case,
where the Petitioner, being a disabled person, is seeking Class IV
employment in Indian Railways. He has submitted that in that case,
the issue which had been framed was "Whether the applicability of
equivalence prescribed by Government Resolution dated 14/6/1999
is restricted to the matters stated therein or whether such
equivalence can also be made applicable to employees of the
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation?". He has submitted
that it is in this context that the Government Resolution dated 14th
June 1999, which would indicate that the equivalence granted to a
qualification of Uttama (Hindi Literature) by the Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan, Allahabad as being equivalent to BA Hons was
considered. Reference had been made to Clause 3(b) of the
Government Resolution dated 14th June 1999, which mandates that
the said equivalence would be permissible to be taken into
7 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 178.
8 2017 (7) Mh.L.J. 860.
:: 8 ::
WP-3672-25.doc
consideration only while appointing Hindi Teachers in Secondary
School.
13. Dr. Warunjikar has submitted that the Full Bench
has in consideration of the Government Resolution dated 14th June
1999 indicated that the equivalence granted therein is only for the
purpose of subject 'Hindi' and not for the entire graduate
examination. The Full Bench has in this context held that the
equivalence granted to the qualification of Uttama by the Bombay
Hindi University, as being equivalent to SSC, cannot be said to be of
universal applicability, but is restricted only to the subject 'Hindi', for
the purpose of considering a person to be appointed as a Hindi
teacher in Secondary School and not otherwise.
14. Dr. Warunjikar has submitted that the judgment of
the Full Bench has no applicability in the present case as the Full
Bench was not considering a case of Petitioner who is disabled and
seeks Class IV employment. This is apart from the settled law of
reasonable accommodation provided under the RPwD Act. Further,
the said Government Resolution dated 28th February, 2007 itself
provides for equivalence granted to a qualification of Uttama with
:: 9 ::
WP-3672-25.doc
SSC matriculation.
15. Dr. Warunjikar has submitted that from Vijay Rai
(Supra) and Pravin S/o. Sahebrao Deshmukh (Supra), it is apparent
that what was being considered was the qualification of "Sahitya
Sudhakar" awarded to the Petitioner being equivalent to graduation,
i.e. B.A. in context of the post of Clerk-Typist (Junior) in MSRTC. He
has submitted that none of these judgments are applicable in the
present case.
16. Dr. Warunjikar has referred to the judgment of
Division Bench of this Court in Shabana Rashid Pinjari Vs.
Maharashtra Public Service Commission, Through its Chairman 9,
wherein Division Bench of this Court had considered the case of the
Petitioner, who had battling and surmounting debility against visual
impairment (100% blindness). The Division Bench of this Court had
relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court including Vikas
Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission10. In the said judgment at
paragraph 45 it is held that the principle of reasonable
9 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 1198
10 (2021) 5 SCC 370.
:: 10 ::
WP-3672-25.doc
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".
17. Dr. Warunjikar has submitted that the Division
Bench of this Court in Shanta Sonawane Vs. Union of India & Anr. 11,
has held that the concept of fairness in dealing with persons with
disabilities is not only of treating them equal with others but of an
affirmative action.
18. Dr. Warunjikar has submitted that the Division
Bench in Shanta Sonawane (Supra) had also dealt with the
preliminary objection on jurisdiction which has been raised by Mr.
11 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 662.
:: 11 ::
WP-3672-25.doc
Suresh Kumar, the learned Counsel for the Respondents herein viz.
that the Central Administrative Tribunal would have jurisdiction in
such matters considering that the matter is related to service with the
Union of India. It has been held that the Petitioner is not only raising
a dispute regarding services with the Union of India but also seeking
enforcement of the rights and obligations under the RPwD Act.
19. Mr. Suresh Kumar has relied upon the judgment of the
Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. 12 in
support of his submission that the Supreme Court has recognised that
Tribunals created under Article 323-A and Article 323-B of the
Constitution are possessed of the competence to test the
constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules. It has been
held that the Tribunals will, nevertheless, continue to act like Courts
of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have
been constituted and that it will not, therefore, be open for litigants
to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they
question the vires of statutory legislations by overlooking the
jurisdiction of the concerned Tribunal.
12 (1997)3 SCC 261
:: 12 ::
WP-3672-25.doc
20. Mr. Suresh Kumar has placed reliance on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil)
No.2 of 2024. Re : Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial
Services13. He has submitted that the Supreme Court in the said
judgment considered a set of cases which raise important issues that
touch upon the umbrella of rights in respect of the differently abled
persons or PwD who have been afforded special protection under the
law. This was in the context of the suitability of visually impaired
persons being qualified with a degree in law to be appointed as
judicial officers. The Supreme Court considered that relaxation can
be done in assessing suitability of candidates when enough PwDs are
not available after selection in their respective category to the extent,
as stated in the relevant paragraphs in the said judgment and in the
light of existing Rules and Official Circulars and Executive Orders in
this regard.
21. Mr. Suresh Kumar has submitted that the said
judgment of the Supreme Court in S.N.W. (C) No.2 of 2024, which is
in the context of recruitment to Judicial Service, it has been held that
separate qualifying marks are required to be provided for PwBD
13 Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) 2 of 2024 :: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 481
:: 13 ::
WP-3672-25.doc
(Person with Benchmark Disability) in preliminary and main
examinations. The Supreme Court also observed that qualifying
marks should ordinarily be the same for SC/ST candidates or can
even be lower, if so prescribed by the relevant Rules. If the Rules are
silent, then the Competent Authority can lay down such qualifying
marks.
22. Mr. Suresh Kumar has submitted that in that case
the relaxation of the PwD candidate and / or reasonable
accommodation provided to him was in order that he does not face
discrimination in pursuit of Judicial Service opportunities. He has
submitted that reasonable accommodation cannot be stretched to the
extent which the Petitioner has sought in the present case viz., to
draw an equivalence of the Uttama Course to SSC matriculation. He
has referred to the impugned communication dated 22nd August,
2024, which had been addressed by the Assistant Personal Officer
(R.D.K.), of Respondent No.2, wherein the candidacy of the
Petitioner was disqualified for recruitment to the Level 1 post in
PwBD - VI category under Centralized Employment Notice No.
RRC /01/2019. This was on the ground that the examinations
conducted by such Hindi Universities, for Uttama / Bhasha Ratna /
:: 14 ::
WP-3672-25.doc
Sahitya Sudhakar Hindi Level examination conducted by the Central
Government has not been approved by the board to be equivalent to
SSC / HSC / BA level examination. He has accordingly submitted
that the present Petition lacks merit and is required to be dismissed.
23. Having considered the submissions, in our view,
there is no merit in the preliminary objection taken by the
Respondents on the maintainability of the Petition on the ground that
there is an alternate remedy available to the Petitioner to approach
Central Administrative Tribunal ("CAT") in view of the matter being
related to service with the Union of India.
24. The Petitioner being a specially abled person has
sought enforcement of his rights and obligations under the RPwD. In
a similar case where the Petitioner was a disabled person, the
Division Bench of this Court in Shanta Digambar Sonawane (Supra)
has considered the objection as raised here namely that the matter
being related to service with the Union of India, the Petition should
be dismissed on the grounds of alternate remedy to approach the
CAT. The Division Bench of this Court has held that in view of the
Petitioner not only raising dispute regarding services with the Union
:: 15 ::
WP-3672-25.doc
of India but also seeking enforcement of rights and obligations under
the RPwD Act as well as his constitutional/fundamental rights, this
Court would have jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India and by declining to exercise Writ jurisdiction, this would
result in failure of justice and would defeat the spirit behind the
RPwD Act.
25. The Petitioner as a (specially abled) person is
seeking the candidature for the post of Group - D Level 1 with the
Respondents - Indian Railways. This is pursuant to an advertisement
published by Respondent No.1 on 23rd February, 2019 for various
posts under the Indian Railways. The Petitioner having been
successful in the examination conducted by the Respondent No.2, has
been disqualified on the ground that the Uttama Board from which
the Petitioner passed, is not recognized to have equivalence with the
SSC Matriculation. This is borne out from the impugned rejection
letter dated 22nd August, 2024, (Exhibit G to the Petition).
26. The reliance placed by Mr. Suresh Kumar on the
Full Bench judgment of this Court (Nagpur Bench) in Dhiraj S/o.
Narayan Narekar (Supra), is misplaced. In that judgment, the Full
:: 16 ::
WP-3672-25.doc
Bench was considering the issue of whether the applicability of
equivalence prescribed by GR dated 14th June, 1999 is restricted to
the matters stated therein or whether such equivalence can also be
made applicable to the employees of MSRTC. The Full Bench upon a
perusal of the GR dated 14th June, 1999 was of the view that it
indicated that the equivalence of Uttama (Hindi Literature) by the
Hindi Sahitya Sammelan was equivalent to BA Hons only for the
purpose, as indicated in Clause 3(b) of the GR while appointing
Hindi Teachers in Secondary School. The judgments of this Court
relied upon in the said judgment pertain to a consideration of the
equivalence of qualification of 'Sahitya Sudhakar' awarded to the
Petitioner to the BA graduation. It was held by the Full Bench that
the equivalence should be accepted only while appointing the
incumbent on the post of Hindi teachers. These decisions are not
applicable to a case of a Petitioner seeking Class - IV employment
and wherein the Petitioner was placing reliance upon the GR dated
28th February, 2007, where Uttama has been shown to have
equivalence to SSC Matriculation. The Full Bench has in the context
of that case held that equivalence granted to Uttama by Bombay
Hindi University as being equivalent to SSC cannot be said to be of
universal applicability but is restricted only to the subject "Hindi" for
:: 17 ::
WP-3672-25.doc
the purpose of considering a person to be appointed as a Hindi
teacher in secondary school and not otherwise. The Full Bench
judgment accordingly is distinguishable on facts and has no
applicability to the case at hand.
27. The Supreme Court has in several judgments
including in the recent judgments in Sujata Bora (Supra) and Re.:
Recruitment of Visually impaired in Judicial Service (Supra) has
enunciated the principal of reasonable accommodation in the context
of the RPwD Act. It is pertinent to note that the Supreme Court in Re.
: Recruitment of Visually impaired in Judicial Service (Supra) has at
paragraph 67 held that, the principal of reasonable accommodation,
as enshrined in International Conventions, established jurisprudence
and the RPwD Act mandate that the accommodations be provided to
PwDs as a pre-requisite to assessing their eligibility. In the light of the
above, any indirect discrimination that results in the exclusion of
PwDs, whether through rigid cut-offs or procedural barriers, must be
interfered with in order to uphold substantive equality. The
commitment to ensure equal opportunities necessitates a structured
and inclusive approach, where merit is evaluated with due regard to
the reasonable accommodations required, thereby fostering judicial
:: 18 ::
WP-3672-25.doc
appointments that truly reflects the principal of fairness and justice.
Thus, the Supreme Court has considered that it is the mandate of the
RPwD Act that reasonable accommodation is provided to PwDs as a
pre-requisite to assessing their eligibility.
28. In the present case, the Petitioner is seeking her
eligibility to the post of Group D Level 1 of the Indian Railways. The
Petitioner though being successful in the examinations has been held
to be ineligible merely because of the view taken by the Respondents
in the impugned rejection letter that, the 10th Uttama examinations
which the Petitioner has successfully passed does not meet the
minimum educational qualification required for recruitment to Level
- 1 post in the PwBD - VI category under Centralized Employment
Notice No. RRC/01/2019. Presuming that such a view is correct, the
Petitioner who is a PwD is required to be provided accommodation as
pre-requisite to assessing her eligibility as held by the Supreme Court
in Re.: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Service (Supra).
The action of the Respondents in rejecting her candidature would in
our view be in violation of the principles of reasonable
accommodation.
:: 19 ::
WP-3672-25.doc
29. We do not find merit in the submissions of Mr.
Suresh Kumar that the reasonable accommodation sought by the
Petitioner in the present case goes beyond the reasonable
accommodation which has been provided by the RPwD Act and / or
as laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned
judgments. We consider this to be an appropriate case, where such
reasonable accommodation is required to be provided to the
Petitioner in order for the Petitioner to have equal opportunity where
merit is evaluated with due regard to reasonable accommodations.
30. Further, in Shabana Rashid Pinjari v. Maharashtra
Public Service Commission, in Writ Petition No.6706 of 2025,
judgment dated 11th November, 2025, the Division Bench of this
Court has placed reliance upon Sunanda Bhandari Foundation v.
Union of India & Anr14 and observed that in the matter of providing
reliefs to those who are differently abled, the approach and attitude
of the executive must be liberal and relief orientated and not
obstructive or lethargic.
31. We accordingly find merit in the present Petition.
14 AIR 2014 SC 2869
:: 20 ::
WP-3672-25.doc
Hence, the following Order is passed:-
i. The impugned rejection letter dated 22nd August,
2024 of Respondent No.2 rejecting the candidature of
the Petitioner to the post of Group - D Level - 1 in the
Respondents - Indian Railways is quashed and set
aside.
ii. The Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the
candidature of the present Petitioner for the post of
Assistant viz. Group - D Level 1 within a period of
three weeks from uploading of this Order. The
Respondent No.2 shall till then keep one post vacant
for the Petitioner as per advertisement No. RRC -
01/2019.
iii. The Writ Petition is accordingly made absolute and
disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [R.I. CHAGLA J.]
:: 21 ::
