[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Deepak Patidar vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:20164) on 28 April, 2026

Author: Anand Sharma

Bench: Anand Sharma

[2026:RJ-JD:20164]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3461/2026

Deepak Patidar S/o Shri Padamji Patidar, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o    M.p.    Nichli    Mordi,      Tehsil      Ganora,        District   Banswara,
Rajasthan.
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                         Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
         Of Revenue, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2.       The Secretary, Board Of Revenue, Ajmer (Land Record),
         Ajmer, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
3.       The Secretary, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial
         Service Selection Board, Jaipur District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Kailash Jangid
                                   Mr. Mohan Singh
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Siddharth Pandey for
                                   Mr. S.R. Paliwal for R-1,2
                                   Mr. Manish Patel



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Order

28/04/2026

1. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner

challenged the condition No. 14(a) of the Advertisement dated

20.02.2025 as well as communication dated 30.12.2025 whereby,

candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on account of

having disability in both legs-lower limbs. It is stated that the

respondent-Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur issued

Advertisement No. 2/2025 for recruitment on the post of Patwari.

In the advertisement, vacancies were also reserved for 'specially

abled person' and Clause -14 of the Advertisement deals with

(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 03:14:07 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:20164] (2 of 6) [CW-3461/2026]

eligibility to claim reservation meant for 'specially abled person'.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is

suffering from 80% disability in his both legs-lower limbs however,

in view of the Provisions of Right of Persons with Disabilities Act,

2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2016) as well as in view of

Rajasthan Rights of Persons With Disabilities Rules, 2017, the

petitioner cannot be deprived of benefit of reservation, which

would be otherwise against the object and spirit of provisions of

the Act and the discriminatory with the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that

condition No. 14(a) of the Advertisement is in direct contravention

of the provisions of Act of 2016 and deprives 'specially abled

person's' legitimate rights to get appointment on the vacancies

reserved for 'specially abled persons'. Learned counsel also

submits that despite the petitioner being physically challenged on

account of disability in his both legs, the petitioner is fully capable

to carry out the work of Patwari.

3. Learned counsel further submits that after undergoing

the process of recruitment, the petitioner has secured sufficient

marks so as to enable him to seek appointment in reserved

category for 'specially abled person' but for the reason that on

account of having disability in both the lower limbs, the petitioner

has been declared as medically unfit, failure of justice has

occasioned with the petitioner.

4. In view of above submissions, petitioner has prayed for

quashing condition No. 14(a) with further direction to direct

respondent to appoint the petitioner on the post of Patwari.

Learned counsel for the petitioner heavily relies upon the

(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 03:14:07 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:20164] (3 of 6) [CW-3461/2026]

judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of

Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Sunita (D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.

572/2023) and other connected matters decided on 31.08.2024.

5. The writ petition has been opposed by the respondents

by way of filing reply. It has been objected that the terms and

condition of the advertisement were expeditiously clear and it was

mentioned in unambiguous terms that as per decision dated

28.11.2019 taken by the duly constituted committee under the

provisions of Rajasthan Specially Abled Person Rules, 2018, for the

post of Patwari, reservation has been earmarked only to the

'specially abled person' suffering disability only in one leg-lower

limb. Despite there being knowledge of such condition in the

advertisement, quite consciously and deliberately, the petitioner

participated in the recruitment examination and thereafter, upon

completion of the process, on account of not being eligible, when

the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected vide

communication dated 30.12.2025, as a matter of afterthought the

present petition has been filed. Hence, the petitioner has waived

and acquiesced his right to challenge condition No. 14(a), after

participating in the process.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits

that the matter with regard to grant of reservation of 'specially

abled person' on the post of Patwari was placed before the duly

constituted committee under Rajasthan Rights of Person with

Disability Rules, 2018 and after examining the nature of duties of

Patwari, it was unanimously decided to confine the reservation

meant for 'specially abled person' only to the candidates

sustaining the disability in one leg lower limb. It is submitted that

(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 03:14:07 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:20164] (4 of 6) [CW-3461/2026]

reference of said decision also been given in the advertisement,

yet the same has not been challenged by the petitioner and under

such circumstances, the petitioner cannot get any relief as prayed

in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondents placed

reliance upon order dated 04.02.2026 passed by Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in S.B. CWP No. 2037/2026 (Dinesh

Dhatarwal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.).

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon

perusal of the record, this Court finds that the condition No. 14(a)

mentioned in the advertisement is solely based upon the decision

dated 05.12.2019 taken by the duly constituted committee under

the Rules of 2018.

8. It is not disputed that the persons suffering disability

are entitled for reservation in public service, yet such right is not

unguided and uncanalized. As per the provisions of Act of 2016 as

well as Rules of 2018, it is well within the rights of the employer to

earmark a particular post for persons suffering with particular

disability. In the instant case, after considering the nature of the

duties of Patwari, who is supposed to visit the agricultural field

and to carry out measurement etc. in the field, it has been

decided to confine the benefit of reservation only to persons

suffering disability in one leg-lower limb. Such decision has not

been challenged by the petitioner in the instant writ petition

whereas, the decision was placed on record by the respondents

along with their reply and reference of the same also finds place in

condition No. 14(a) of the advertisement.

9. In the case of Dinesh Dhatarwal (supra) where, the

Co-ordinate Bench was considering the case of a person who was

(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 03:14:07 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:20164] (5 of 6) [CW-3461/2026]

also suffering disability in both the lower limbs and participated in

the recruitment process of Patwari where his candidature was

rejected on the similar grounds and the Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court has observed as under:

"6. I have seen the terms and conditions of the advertisement and it clearly show that the post of Patwari, for which, the applications were invited were reserved for disabled persons, who are having disability in one lower-limb. The petitioner consciously knowing the conditions, had applied for the said post knowingly well that he has disqualified by virtue of the conditions in the advertisement. Further, he has not challenged the conditions of the advertisement or making the post reserved for one lower-limb.

7. When the conditions of the advertisement disqualified the petitioner, the case of the petitioner, cannot be considered ignoring the conditions of the advertisement, which are in force. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. "

10. As regards the judgment in the case of State of

Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Sunita & Ors. (supra) which has been

relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court

finds that the condition of advertisement in the said case was

altogether different and there was no reference of any decision

taken by the duly constituted committee under the Rules of 2018

in the said case. Even otherwise, no issue with regard to

maintainability of the petition relating to objection of challenging

condition after having been participated in the process, was never

raised before the Division Bench of this Court, nor is there any

finding in this regard. That apart, admittedly, the Division Bench of

this Court was considering the cases where appointment offered