Recently, the Madhya Pradesh High Court heard a complex and intriguing case involving the recruitment of government employees under the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016(RPwD). The case centred on unfilled posts from previous years, reservation categories, and the interpretation of Section 34(2) of the Act, highlighting issues critical for ensuring fair representation of persons with disabilities in government service.
The dispute arose when the Employees Selection Board issued the Joint Examination Advertisement 2023 for recruitment to multiple posts, including eight backlog posts of Shorthand Typists reserved for candidates with disabilities in the Unreserved category. These posts were further classified for the Visually Handicapped, Locomotor Disability, and Multiple Disability categories. The Petitioner, belonging to the LD category and suffering from 50% orthopaedic handicap, applied for posts across 108 departments, listing her first preference as Hindi Stenographer and her fourth preference as Shorthand Typist under Post Code-022.
The examination results declared her selected for her first preference, but when she attempted to join, the department informed her that the advertisement for the post had been withdrawn. She subsequently claimed her right to the Shorthand Typist post, which was denied on the grounds that higher-merit candidates had already been appointed.
The Petitioner’s counsel argued that the withdrawn post and the unfilled MD post were backlog vacancies under Section 34(2) of the RPwD Act, 2016, and that she should be considered for appointment through category interchange. It was submitted that the posts, originally identified in 2019, had been carried forward due to delays and should be filled in accordance with the Act’s mandate to ensure representation of persons with disabilities. The government, on the other hand, contended that the posts were advertised for the first time in 2023, and therefore could not be treated as carried forward, making Section 34(2) inapplicable.
In examining the matter, the Court analysed the definition of “recruitment year” under the M.P. Junior Service (Joint Qualifying) Examination Rules, 2013, and clarified that vacancies identified in a previous year, even if filled later, qualify as backlog vacancies. The Court also emphasised that Section 34(2) allows interchange among categories when no suitable candidate is available, ensuring that the government meets its obligations toward persons with benchmark disabilities.
Ultimately, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the unfilled post of Shorthand Typist in the MD category and directed the authorities to implement the appointment within 90 days, reinforcing the principle that backlog vacancies must be filled in line with the provisions of the RPwD Act, 2016.
Case Title: Vaishali Chaturvedi Vs the State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Case No.: W.P.19248 Of 2024
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Ashish Shroti
Counsel for the Petitioner: Adv Prashant Singh Kaurav
Counsel for the Respondent: Adv. G.K. Agrawal and Adv. Shashank Indapurkar
Picture Source :
