Gujarat High Court
Rathva Babubhai Karshanbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 14 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14438 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14438 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
===========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
RATHVA BABUBHAI KARSHANBHAI & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KB PUJARA(680) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,3,4,5
MR PARESHKUMAR B TRIVEDI(9926) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,3,4,5
PETITION/APPEAL WITHDRAWN/DISMISSED for the Petitioner(s) No. 2,6
MS SURBHI BHATI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 14/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed for the following prayers :
"11(a) to admit this petition and to allow the same by
issuing Notice for final disposal on returnable date as the
petitioners are Blind and Visually Impaired candidates;
(b) direct the respondents to equally distribute between (1)
blind and low vision and (2) locomotor disability the 57
vacancies reserved for PH candidates in the recruitment of
Shikshan Sahayaks for Govt.Secondary Schools pursuant to
the Advertisement at Annexure-A, and to prepare separate
merit-lists for the said two categories, and to give
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
appointments accordingly;
(c) to direct the respondents to reserve at least 24 vacancies
for PH candidates out of the total 617 vacancies of Shikshan
Sahayaks to be filled up in the Govt.Higher Secondary
Schools pursuant to the Advertisement at Annexure-B read
with Annexure-C, and to equally distribute such 24 vacancies
between (1) blind and low vision and (2) locomotor disability,
and to prepare separate merit-lists for the said two
categories, and to give appointments accordingly.
(d) to direct the respondents to give appointments to the
petitioners as per their merit in the category of PH
candidates suffering from Blindness and Low Vision and all
consequential benefits as if they were appointed along with
the first candidate of the same recruitment process;
(e) to quash and set aside the impugned action of the
respondents in reserving only 14 vacancies for PH candidates
instead of at least 24 vacancies at the rate of 4% of the
total 617 vacancies to be filled up in Govt.Higher Secondary
Schools as per Annexure-B read with Annexure-C;
(f) to quash and set aside the impugned actions of the
respondents in not separately reserving the vacancies of PH
candidates for (1) blind and low vision and (2) locomotor
disability, and in not preparing the separate merit-lists for
the said two categories;
(g) PENDING THE HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL OF
THIS PETITION, BE PLEASED to stay the further process
of recruitment of Shikshan Sahayaks for Govt.Secondary and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
Higher Secondary Schools as per Annexure-A, B and C;
(h) PENDING THE HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL OF
THIS PETITION, BE PLEASED to direct the respondents to
prepare separate merit-lists of the candidates suffering from
(1) blindness and low vision and (2) locomotor disability, and
to give appointments to at least 29 Visually Impaired
candidates as Shikshan Sahayaks in Govt.Secondary Schools,
and to at least 12 Visually Impaired Candidates as Shikshan
Sahayaks in Govt.Higher Secondary Schools in the
recruitment as per Annexure-A, Band C;
(i) xxxx"
2. At the outset, though this petition was preferred
by six petitioners, two of them- Chenva Sanjaykumar
Jayantibhai - petitioner no.2 and Patel Gopalbhai Amrutbhai
- petitioner no.6 herein have sought permission to withdraw
this petition, which was permitted vide order dated 18.4.2022.
Thus, this petition now, remains to be considered for
petitioner nos.1,3,4 and 5 only. Rule returnable forthwith.
Learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for respondents.
3. The grievance raised in this petition is that the
respondents are not providing at least 4% of the vacancies
for Physically Handicapped, and they are also not separately
providing for the vacancies reserved for (a) blind and low
vision candidates, and (b) locomotor disability candidates, as
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
statutorily mandated by Section-34 of the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act
of 2016')
3.1. The case of the petitioners is that they are
blind/visually impaired candidates. They have passed
B.A./M.A. and B.Ed./M.Ed. and also passed the Teacher
Aptitute Test (Secondary) and/or Teacher Aptitude Test
(Higher Secondary) and therefore eligible and qualified to be
appointed as Shikshan Sahayaks/Teachers in Secondary and/or
Higher Secondary Schools.
3.2 That on or about 17.11.2019, the respondent no.2
issued advertisement inviting applications for filling up 1239
vacancies of Shikshan Sahayak in Secondary schools, out of
which, 57 vacancies are earmarked for physically handicapped.
At about the same time, the respondent no.2 issued
advertisement inviting applications for filling up 557 vacancies
of Shikshan Sahayak in Higher Secondary Schools, out of
which, only 20 vacancies are earmarked as physically
handicapped. On 21.10.2020, the respondent no.2 has issued a
chart, which shows that the total vacancies are increased to
617 but the vacancies earmarked for physically handicapped
are reduced to only 14 for higher secondary schools.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
4. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
4.1 Learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted
that the Act of 2016 came into force on 19.4.2017 i.e. before
the date of the advertisement impugned, in which, Section 34
provides that the government shall appoint in every
government establishment, not less than 4% of the total
number of vacancies in the cadre strength by persons with
benchmark disabilities of which, 1% each shall be reserved
for (a) blind and low vision candidates (b) deaf and hard of
hearing candidates (c) locomotor disability candidates and (d)
autism and multiple disabilities candidates. It is submitted
that in the present advertisement, only two types of disabled
candidates are eligible to apply viz. (1) blind and low vision
and (2) locomotor disability. Therefore, considering the above
section, for secondary schools, 57 vacancies which are
reserved for PH candidates are to be equally divided into the
above two categories and separate merit lists for each
category are required to be prepared and for higher
secondary schools, atleast 24 vacancies are required to be
equally distributed between the two categories and separate
merit lists are required to be prepared. The same is not
done in the impugned recruitment process and therefore the
same is required to be quashed and set aside as they are
contrary to the mandatory statutory provisions of the Act of
2016.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
4.2 Learned advocate for the petitioners has further
submitted that the National Federation of Blind, Gujarat
Branch and the Blind candidates made representation to the
respondent no.2 on 17.11.2019 for the said grievance to which
the respondent no.2 gave reply on 21.11.2019 that it was a
policy matter and his office will make appropriate proposal to
the state government, however, nothing was done. It is
further submitted that Rule 11(3) of the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities Rules, 2017 (Rules of 2017 for short),
provides that "while making advertisement to fill up
vacancies, every government establishment shall indicate the
number of vacancies reserved for each class of persons with
benchmark disabilities in accordance with the provisions of
Section 34 of the Act" but the respondents have not
implemented the said statutory mandatory provision in the
advertisement impugned.
5. Per contra, learned AGP for the respondents-state
authorities, has referred to the affidavit-in-reply and further
affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents and
submitted that prior to the Act of 2016 coming into force,
the policy which was adopted by the state was the policy
dated 3.8.2011, which was with a view to comply with the
numerous provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and full participation) Act,
1995, which stipulated 3% reservation for PH candidates;
thereafter the Act of 2016 came into force which revised 4%
reservation for PH candidates and with a view to implement
the said provisions, the state government has recently framed
the new policy dated 17.9.2021. She submitted that as the
previously prevalent policy was silent on the aspect of
independent maintenance of ratio inter-se between categories,
the same was not done and as the petitioner and other
similarly situated candidates have not indicated clearly the
category of PH and therefore also, it seems that the
appointments have been given only upon considering the PH
candidature and not upon considering the category; that the
policy came into existence on 17.9.2021 and therefore, the
department did not apply the division of 4% in the aforesaid
advertisement; that as previously prevalent policy of 2011
was silent on the classification of the ratio of 4% into
categories of disability and at that time, there was
unpretentious allotment of 3% to PH category without any
bifurcation and therefore the aforesaid advertisement espoused
the method of 2011 policy instead of 2017; that the process
of recruitment has already been concluded as the
advertisement with reference to Secondary Schools was dated
19.11.2019 and Higher Secondary Schools was dated
17.11.2019; that except for the petitioner no.3, all others have
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
filled up the form and were eligible to be appointed in
Secondary Schools only and also there may be other
candidates who may be more meritorious than the petitioners.
Learned AGP has further submitted in detail regarding the
percentage of marks obtained by the petitioners and that
there are more candidates who have higher merit than the
petitioners. Referring to the further affidavit filed on behalf
of respondent no.2 in pursuance to the order dated
12.12.2022 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court, she
submitted that the petitioners have no locus to seek the
prayers, more particularly, when the petitioners have failed to
demonstrate as to how they would be entitled to appointment
even if the prayers sought for are countenanced.
6. Learned AGP has relied on the decisions in the
case of National Federation of the Blind V/s State of Gujarat,
Chief Secretary, Government of Gujarat of this Court decided
on 7.10.2021 and National Federation of the Blind V/s State
of Gujarat & Anr., decided on 22.11.2014 by this Court in
Writ Petition (PIL) No.46 of 2023.
7. In rejoinder, learned advocates for the petitioners
has submitted that the respondents have taken a stand that
in the recruitment in question, they have implemented the
earlier policy of the state government laid down in G.R.dated
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
3.8.2011 and they have not implemented the Act of 2016
which came into force on 19.4.2017 even though the
advertisements in question are issued on 17.11.2019 and
19.11.2019, which shows the arbitrariness on the part of the
respondents. He submitted that even in the Act of 1995,
there was a provision for distribution of 3% vacancies in the
three categories of disability by providing 1% for each
category for which the state government has issued a
G.R.dated 15.2.2001, even that is not implemented in the
said recruitment process. The say of the respondents that
there are more candidates who have higher merit than the
concerned petitioners in their concerned subject is irrelevant
for the reason that the petitioners belong to visually impaired
and it is not the case of the respondents that there are more
meritorious visually impaired candidates in the concerned
subject and secondly even if there are more meritorious
candidates, they have not come to the court and the
petitioners are vigilant in making their grievances.
8. Referring to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the
respondents, learned advocate for the petitioners has
submitted that the respondents have admitted that a total
number of three posts for PH candidates were earmarked for
the subject of Gujarati and all such posts are secured by
candidates of locomotor disability and therefore there is clear
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
illegality committed in not giving appointment to a single
candidate of visual impairment disability. Further, the
respondents have admitted that all the six vacancies of PH
candidates for social science subject have been filled up by
the candidates of orthopaedic disability and not a single
candidate of visual impairment is given the appointment and
therefore also, the petitioner nos.3,4 and 5 are entitled for
appointment as they are visually impaired candidates.
Further, the petitioner no.3 has also applied for higher
secondary section for the subject of sociology and the
respondents have not given any appointment to visually
impaired candidate in the three vacancies notified for PH
category in the subject of sociology. Therefore, the petitioner
no.3 is entitled for the appointment as visually impaired
candidate for the subject of sociology in higher secondary
section also. He, therefore, submitted this petition is required
to be allowed with exemplary costs.
9. In support of his submissions, learned advocate for
the petitioners has relied on the Act of 2016 and the
following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court:
(1) Beg Raj Singh V/s State of Uttar Pradesh reported in
2002(0) AIJEL SC 3065.
(2) Ashok alias Somanna Gowda V/s State of Karnataka
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
reported in 1991(0) AIJEL-SC 1696.
10. I have heard the learned advocates for the parties
and also perused the material placed on record.
11. The entire issue in this petition revolves around
Section 34 of the Act of 2016 as, according to the petitioners,
the same is not followed in the impugned advertisement.
Section 34 of the Act of 2016 reads as under:
"34. Reservation -(1) Every appropriate Government shall
appoint in every Government establishment, not leas than
four per cent of the total number of vacancies in the cadre
strength in each group of posts meant to be filled with
persons with benchmark disabilities of which, one per cent
each shall be reserved for persons with benchmark
disabilities under clauses (a), (b) and (c) and one per cent
for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (d) and
(e), namely -
(a) blindness and low vision;
(b) deaf and hard of hearing;
(c) locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy
cured, dwarfism, acid attach victims and muscular dystrophy;
(d) autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability
and mental illness;
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
(e) multiple disabilities from amongst persons under clauses
(a) to (d) including deaf-blindness in the posts identified for
each disabilities:
Provided that the reservation in promotion shall be in
accordance with such instructions as are issued by the
appropriate Government from time to time:
Provided further that the appropriate Government, in
consultation with the Chief Commissioner or the State
Commissioner, as the case may be, may, having regard to
the type of work carried out in any Government
establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions,
if any, as may be specified in such notifications exempt any
Government establishment from the provisions of this
section."
12. Apparently, in the advertisement dated 17.11.2019
issued by the respondent no.2 herein for the posts of
Shikshan Sahayak in Secondary schools and Shikshan
Sahayaks in higher secondary schools, 4% of the posts for
which the advertisement is issued are not reserved as per
the above provision of law. The vacancies of shikshan
sahayak in secondary schools were 1239, out of which, 57
vacancies were earmarked for physically handicapped and out
of 557 vacancies of shikshan sahayaks, only 20 vacancies
were earmarked for physically handicapped, the said vacancies
were increased to 617, but the vacancies earmarked for
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
physically handicapped are reduced to only 14 for higher
secondary schools. 4% of the vacancies for physically
handicapped were to be provided separately for the vacancies
reserved for (a) blind and low vision candidates and (b)
locomotor disability candidates, which is not done. There is
nothing forthcoming from the learned AGP for the
respondents-authorities to negate this aspect. The stand of
the learned AGP that the 2011 Rules were followed in the
recruitment process cannot be accepted for the reason that
the Rules of 2016 were in existence on the date of the
advertisement impugned which is of the year 2019 and
therefore, the said Rules of 2016 are to be followed, which is
not done.
13. It is submitted by learned AGP that due to lapse
of time from the year 2019 to this time, there may not be
vacancies and the persons who are appointed may be affected
if this petition is allowed at a belated stage. In this regard,
it would be fruitful to refer to the judgment relied on by
learned advocate Mr.Pujara in the case of Beg Raj Singh
(supra), wherein it is observed as under:
"6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as
also the learned counsel for the state and the private
respondent, we are satisfied that the petition deserved to be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
allowed. The ordinary rule of litigation is that the rights of
the parties stand crystallized on the date of commencement
of litigation and right to relief should be decided by
reference to the date on which the petitioner entered the
portals of the court. A petitioner, though entitled to relief in
law, may yet be denied relied in equity because of
subsequent or intervening events, i.e. the events between the
commencement of litigation and the date of decision. The
relief to which the petitioner is held entitled may have been
rendered redundant by lapse of time or may have been
rendered incapable of being granted by change in law. There
may be other circumstances which render it inequitable to
grant the petitioner any relief over the respondents because
of the balance tilting against the petitioner on weighing
inequities pitted against equities on the date of judgment.
Third party interest may have been created or allowing relief
to the claimant may result in unjust enrichment on account
of events happening in between. Else the relief may not be
denied solely on account of time lost in prosecuting
proceedings in judicial or quasi-judicial forum and for no
fault of the petitioner. A plaintiff or petitioner having been
found entitled to a right to relief,t he court would as an
ordinary rule try to place the successful party in the same
position which he would have been if the wrong complained
against would not have been done to him. ....."
14. The above discussion that the respondents have
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
failed to follow the provisions of the Act of 2016 brings me
to the point to decide how and where to accommodate the
petitioners.
15. The Civil Application no.1 of 2025 is filed stating
that during the pendency of this petition, in another
proceeding i.e. Writ Petition (PIL) No.46 of 2023, the Hon'ble
Division Bench has passed various orders, pursuant to which
the State Government has issued Circular dated 11.11.2024
and considering the same, by order dated 22.11.2024, the
Hon'ble Court has directed the State Government to fill up
the backlog of 21114 posts as per 4% quota of reservations
for Persons with Disabilities in time-bound manner. Pursuant
to the same, the respondents issued undated advertisements
nos.1 to 4 of 2025 as special recruitment drive for physically
handicapped candidates inviting applications from 1.4.2025 to
15.4.2025 and soon thereafter issued an announcement that
the dates for submitting applications are changed and new
dates would be declared later on.
16. Though it is prayed that as the present petition is
arising out of the advertisement dated 19.11.2019 and the
petitioners are entitled to be considered for appointments
pursuant to the said advertisement and the petition is now
surviving only for 4(four) petitioners, they may be given effect
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
from the date on which the first appointment as given with
all consequential benefits of salary and seniority, and these
reliefs are required to be granted before the respondents
invite applications for filling up the backlog of physically
handicapped vacancies by the special recruitment drive, the
fact remains, as submitted by learned AGP that as on
10.12.2021 i.e. the date of filing of the affidavit-in-reply by
the respondents-authorities, there were only two vacant posts
in higher secondary in the subject of account and commerce-
1, economics-1, English-1 and there are no vacant posts
available in Secondary Schools to accommodate any of the
petitioners and except for the petitioner no.3, all others have
filled up the form and were eligible to be appointed in
secondary schools only. Considering this submission also, the
petitioners cannot be appointed from the back date i.e.
19.11.2019.
17. Further, if the entire recruitment process of
19.11.2019 is disturbed by directing the respondents-
authorities to implement the provisions of Section 34 of the
Act of 2016 as indicated above, it will lead to chaos as many
meritorious candidates who are genuinely selected and
appointed as per their merits will be disturbed for not fault
of theirs and also many other persons will be included in the
4% earmarked for the physically handicapped. Considering the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok @
Somanna Gowda (supra) as relied on by learned advocate for
the petitioners wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed
and held in paragraph 3 that "......In view of the fact that
appointments under the impugned Rules were made as back
as in 1987 and only the present appellants had approached
the Tribunal for relief, the case of other candidates cannot be
considered as they never approached for redress within
reasonable time. We are thus inclined to grant relief only to
the present appellants who were vigilant in making grievance
and approaching the Tribunal in time......" this petition is
required to be allowed to the extent of granting the benefits
of this litigation to the four petitioners herein who were
vigilant and approached this Court. However, the prayer of
giving the appointment to these four petitioners from the
date of the impugned advertisement cannot be accepted for
the fact that there is no vacancy as of that date.
18. A reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Alok Singh V/s State of Madhya
Pradesh and Ors., decided on 3.3.2025 in Suo Motu Writ
Petition (Civil) Nos.2 of 2024 and allied matters, it is
observed and held in paragraph 67.1 and 68 as under:
"67.1 Thus, after considering the pleadings, submissions of
the learned Counsel appearing for all the parties, as well as
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
the legal positions and case laws, we conclude as follows:
(i) Visually impaired candidates cannot be said to be `not
suitable' for judicial service and they are eligible to
participate in selection for posts in judicial service.
(ii) The amendment made in Rule 6A of the Madhya
Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of
Service) Rules, 1994 falls foul of the Constitution, and is
hence, struck down to the extent that it does not include
visually impaired persons who are educationally qualified for
the post to apply therefor.
(iii) The proviso to Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial
Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) rules, 1994
relating to additional requirements, violates the equality
doctrine and the principle of reasonable accommodation, and
is hereby struck down in its application to differently abled
persons who have the requisite educational qualifications for
applying to the posts under judicial service.
(iv) Relaxation can be done in assessing suitability of
candidates when enough PwD are not available after
selection in their respective category, to the extent as stated
in the relevant paragraphs above, and in the light of
existing Rules and Official Circulars and executive orders in
this regard, as in the present case.
(v) A separate cut-off is to be maintained and selection made
accordingly for visually-impaired candidates as has been
indicated in the relevant paragraphs in line with the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
judgment in Indra Sawhney.
(vi) For the purpose of rights and entitlements of persons
with disabilities, particularly in employment, and more
specifically in respect of the issues covered in this judgment,
there can be no distinction between Persons with Disabilities
(PwD) and Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD).
VII RESULT
68. In the upshot:
(i) Visually impaired candidates are eligible to participate in
selection of the posts under the judicial service and hence,
Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service
(Recruitment and Conditions of Service) rules, 1994 is struck
down insofar as it excludes visually impaired and low vision
candidates for appointment in judicial service.
(ii) Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service
(Recruitment and Conditions of Service) rules, 1994 to the
extent of prescribing additional requirement of either a
three-year practice period of securing an aggregate score of
70% in the first attempt, is struck down insofar as it
applies to PwD candidates. The said Rule will be applicable
to the PwD candidates insofar as it prescribes the
educational and other qualifications as eligibility criteria
including the minimum aggregate score of 70% (with
relaxation as may be determined like in the case of SC/ST
candidates), but without the requirement of either that it
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
should be in the first attempt or that they should have
three years' practice. As a sequel, the impugned order dated
01.04.2024 passed by the High Court and the consequential
notification dated 17.11.2023 issued by the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh, are set aside as against the PwD
candidates and the Appellant viz. Ayush Yardi and similarly
placed persons, are entitled to be considered for participating
in the selection process in the light of this decision.
(iii) The order of the High Court dated 11.01.2024 and the
notification dated 18.02.2023 are set aside as far as the
Appellant viz., Alok Singh and similarly placed persons are
concerned. The Appellant and similarly placed persons who
had participated in the selection process, are entitled to be
considered in the light of this decision, and they may be
appointed, if they are otherwise eligible in the vacant posts
after applying applicable relaxation as provided for in the
executive orders.
(iv) The writ Petitioners in WP(C) Nos.484 and 494 of 2024,
who contend that separate cut-off was not applied in the
Rajasthan Judicial Service Preliminary Examinations, and
consequently were not selected for the main examination,
shall be entitled to be considered in the light of this
decision in the next recruitment, if they so apply to the post
notified along with the post unfilled now and carried forward
to the next recruitment by maintaining a separate cut off
and merit list for PwDs.
(v) The respective authorities are directed to proceed with
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
the selection process for appointment of the judicial officers,
in the light of this decision and complete the same, as
expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three
months, from today."
19. In the result, this petition is partly allowed. As
the petitioners have suffered due to the lapse on the part of
the respondents-authorities and the petitioners were vigilant
and have approached this Court to redress their grievances,
however, as the fruits of this litigation cannot be given
retrospective effect which will affect the genuine meritorious
candidates for no fault of theirs, the interest of justice and
striking of balance would be met if the respondents-
authorities are directed to give appointment to these four
petitioners in the special recruitment drive which is
undertaken pursuant to the orders passed by the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court by placing them at the top of
seniority list. Order accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the
aforesaid extent. Civil Application stands disposed of.
20. Though, after considering the statutory provision
and the legal position, this Court passed the above order,
before parting, this Court would like to express concern on
certain points regarding the practical difficulties which would
be faced by such benchmark disabled persons at work. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14438/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
persons with benchmark disabilities may have certain
limitations to perform their duties at workplace. Though the
legislations are enacted to provide equal opportunity to such
persons and to see that they may live their life with dignity
by working in government organizations, the other side of the
coin remains that the persons with such benchmark
disabilities may face many practical difficulties in discharging
their duty in efficient manner. If such persons are offered
reservation in those categories in which they can do their
work with ease and their challenges may not increase, the
purpose of legislation would serve in its real spirit. It would
be in the larger interest, if the concerned authority of the
government, at the time of issuing notifications based on the
Act of 2016, take note of the proviso to Section 34 of the
Act of 2016, and having regard to the type of particular
work being carried out in any government establishment may
consider such situation in appropriate manner in view of the
provisions of this section. It is expected that such clarification
will be done in future at the time of issuance of
notifications/advertisements, so that it will act as a `candle in
the dark' to such disabled candidates in its true spirit rather
than paving way for more challenges.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
SRILATHA
