Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Priya Srivasatava vs State Of Haryana on 3 August, 2026
1
ITEM NO.48 COURT NO.6 SECTION X
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition(Civil) No.708/2026
PRIYA SRIVASATAVA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. Respondent(s)
[TO BE TAKEN ON TOP OF THE BOARD]
(IA No. 167301/2026 - GRANT OF INTERIM RELIEF)
WITH
W.P.(C) No. 804/2026 (PIL-W)
(IA No. 187328/2026 - EARLY HEARING APPLICATION & IA No.
187329/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
W.P.(C) No. 829/2026 (X)
(FOR ADMISSION)
(IA No. 194291/2026 - GRANT OF INTERIM RELIEF)
Date : 03-08-2026 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN
For Petitioner(s) : Petitioner-in-person
Mr. Siddhartha Iyer, AOR
Mr. Aman Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Jaispriya Poply, Adv.
Mr. Jayant Singh Raghav, Adv.
Mr. Srikrishna Kumar Yadav, Adv.
Ms. Ragini Kumari, Adv.
Ms. Tanya Yadav, Adv.
Ms.Megha Tolia, Adv.
Ms. Sara Chawla, Adv.
Mr. Aryan Kumar, Adv.
Mr.Nandan Kumar Rai, Adv.
Mr. Nitish Kumar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
VISHAL ANAND
Date: 2026.08.04
Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Sr. A.A.G.
17:37:31 IST
Reason:
Mr. Rahul Khurana, AOR
Mr. Nikunj Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Bhavya Singla, Adv.
2
Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Sr. A.A.G.
Mr. D. S. Chauhan, AOR
Ms. Ruchi Singh, Adv.
Mr. Shikher Badial, Adv.
Ms. Radhika Gautam, AOR
Mr. Davinder Pal Singh, A.S.G.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR
Mr. Rajan Kumar Chaurasiya, Adv.
Mr. Yashraj Bundela, Adv.
Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv.
Ms. Vidhi Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Writ Petition(Civil) No.708/2026 & W.P.(C) No. 829/2026
1. By these writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the
Constitution, the petitioners have prayed for the following
reliefs:
“a. Issue a writ, order, or direction, particularly in the nature
of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring Clause No. 16 of the Impugned
Advertisement No. 18 of 2025 dated 08.08.2025 issued by
Respondent No. 2 as ultra vires the Constitution of India, the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the governing
service rules, and strike down the same as being unconstitutional
and void insofar as it restricts the benefit of reservation for
persons with benchmark disabilities to the domiciles/residents of
the State of Haryana;
b. Issue a writ, order, or direction, particularly in the nature
of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to treat the
Petitioner’s Application No. ADA05913 under the reserved category
for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) for recruitment to
the post of Assistant District Attorney, and to consider her
disability certificate dated 24.02.2023 as valid for all purposes
of the selection process irrespective of her domicile outside the
State of Haryana;
c. Issue a writ, order, or direction, particularly in the nature
of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to modify the
online recruitment portal and recruitment procedure to ensure
that all eligible persons with benchmark disabilities,
irrespective of their domicile or residence, are permitted to
apply and compete against the seats reserved under Section 34 of
3the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016;
d. And Pass such other or further order or orders as this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.”
2. Today, when the matters were taken up for further hearing,
Shri Siddharth Iyer, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners very fairly brought to our notice that his client(s)
has/have not been able to clear the preliminary examination.
3. If the aforesaid be so, then the issues raised in these
petitions could be said to have been now become academic. However,
having regard to the importance of the issues, we keep the
questions of law open to be agitated in some appropriate
proceedings.
4. These petitions mainly concern the issue of domicile.
5. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, the learned Senior Additional Advocate
General appearing for the State of Haryana has instructions from
his client to make a Statement before us that the State is
reconsidering its policy of restricting reservation for PwBD
candidates only to domicile/resident candidates of the State of
Haryana, more particularly in light of the provisions of the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
6. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has received
instructions in writing duly signed by Assistant District Attorney
(HRD) for Chief Secretary to Government, Haryana.
7. The communication in writing received by the learned Sr. AAG
is ordered to be taken on record.
8. In the wake of all these developments, as highlighted above,
we need not now adjudicate this petition further on merits.
9. We believe that it will be in the interest of one and all,
more particularly, having regard to the object and spirit of the
Act, 2016 that the State seriously reconsiders its policy of
restricting the reservation for PwDA candidates only to admissible
residents/candidates of the State of Haryana.
10. With the aforesaid, these petitions stand disposed of.
4
W.P.(C) No. 804/2026:-
1. The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 32 of the Constitution and have prayed for the
following reliefs:-
(a) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction, preferably in
the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the benefit of
horizontal reservation provided to Persons with Benchmark
Disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
2016 cannot be restricted solely on the basis of domicile,
residence, or permanent residency of a particular State or Union
Territory and that all Persons with Benchmark Disabilities are
entitled to compete for such reserved vacancies throughout the
territory of India irrespective of their State of domicile.
(b) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction, preferably in
the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, quashing and setting aside
Clause 16(1) and Clause 16(xi) of Advertisement No. 18/2025 dated
08.08.2025 issued by the Haryana Public Service Commission,
insofar as they restrict the benefit of reservation for Persons
with Benchmark Disabilities to residents/domiciles of the State
of Haryana.
(c) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction, preferably in
the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, quashing and setting aside
Clause 6(vi)(a) of Advertisement No. 13/2026 dated 25.02.2026
issued by the Bihar Public Service Commission, insofar as it
restricts the benefit of horizontal reservation for Persons with
Benchmark Disabilities only to candidates who are original
residents of the State of Bihar.
(d) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction declaring that
any rule, recruitment notification, executive instruction,
advertisement, policy, or practice issued by any State
Government, Union Territory, Public Service Commission,
recruiting agency, statutory authority, or instrumentality of the
State restricting the benefit of reservation for Persons with
Benchmark Disabilities solely on the basis of domicile or
residence is unconstitutional, arbitrary, discriminatory, and
violative of Articles 14, 16,19, and 21 of the Constitution of
India as well as the provisions of the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016.
(e)issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction, preferably in
the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to
ensure that Persons with Benchmark Disabilities are permitted to,
avail the benefit of horizontal reservation in public employment
across aU States and Union Territories irrespective of their
State of domicile or residence.
(f) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction declaring that
the prescription of mandatory prior legal practice as an
eligibility condition for appointment to the posts of Assistant
Public Prosecutor, Additional Public Prosecutor, Assistant
District Attorney, Assistant Prosecution Officer, Assistant
5
Government Advocate (Criminal), Deputy District Attorney,
Assistant District Prosecution Officer, Assistant District
Government Counsel (Criminal), Prosecution Officer, and analogous
prosecutorial posts, without any demonstrable nexus to the nature
of duties involved, is arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory,
and violative of Articles 14,16, 19, and 21 of the Constitution
of India.
(g) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing and
setting aside the eligibility conditions prescribing mandatory
years of legal practice contained in the recruitment
notifications, advertisements, recruitment rules, service rules,
executive instructions, or other instruments identified in
Annexure P-2 and any similar provisions in force throughout the
country.
(h) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the
Union of India, through the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry
of Law and Justice, in consultation with the States and Union
Territories, to formulate uniform constitutional and non-
discriminatory guidelines governing recruitment to prosecutorial
services and law officer posts so as to ensure equal opportunity
for all eligible law graduates and advocates.
(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction directing all
States, Union Territories, Public Service Commissions, Staff
Selection Commissions, recruiting agencies, and statutory
authorities to permit eligible law graduates possessing the
prescribed educational qualifications to participate in
recruitment processes for prosecutorial posts without being
subjected to arbitrary and disproportionate experience
requirements.
(j) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the
Respondents to undertake a comprehensive review of all existing
recruitment rules, service rules, advertisements, and executive
instructions governing prosecutorial and government law officer
posts and to remove provisions that are inconsistent with
Articles 14, 16, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India and the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
(k) Issue such other writ, order, or direction as this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the present case and in the interest of justice.
(1) Award costs of the present proceedings in favour of the
Petitioners.
2. This petition mainly concerns the eligibility criteria as
fixed by various States, Union Territories, Public Sector
Commissions insofar as prosecutorial posts are concerned.
3. We are of the view that if any petitioner hailing from any of
the States is aggrieved by it, it shall be open for the petitioner
6
to go before the territorial High Court and redress its grievance.
4. It will be in the fitness of things if any individual
aggrieved by the eligibility criteria first prefers an appropriate
representation addressed to the Competent Authority of a particular
State, wait for a reply that may be given and thereafter go before
the territorial High Court invoking its writ jurisdiction.
5. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.
6. All questions of law are kept open to be agitated before the
concerned High Court.
7. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(VISHAL ANAND) (POOJA SHARMA) DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH)
