Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sohan Singh vs The State Of Haryana And Ors on 27 February, 2026
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
1. CWP-34752-2023 (O&M)
Sohan
... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
2. CWP-37099-2025 (O&M)
Devender Aggarwal
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
3. CWP-37156-2025 (O&M)
Naveen Kumar
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
1 of 48
::: Downloaded on - 04-03-2026 00:08:41 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -2-
Reserved on: 29.01.2026
Pronounced on: 27.02.2026
Uploaded on: 28.02.2026
Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced ? No
Whether full judgment is pronounced ? Yes
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate,
Dr. Purushotam, Advocate and
Mr. Tarun Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CWP-34752-2025).
Mr. Jasbir Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CWP-37099-2025).
Mr. Ajit Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CWP-37156-2025).
Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Addl. AG, Haryana.
Mr. Prince Singh, Advocate
for respondent No.3 (in CWP-34752-2025).
Mr. Sukhdeep S. Parmar, Advocate
for respondent No.2 (in CWP-37099-2025) and
for respondent No.3 (in CWP-37156-2025).
Mr. Gurnoor S. Sandhu, Advocate
for respondent No.3 (in CWP-37099-2025).
Mr. Randeep Singh Dhakla, Advocate
for applicant-proposed respondent No.3
(in CM-1269-CWP-2026 in CWP-37156-2025).
Ms. Sheena Dahiya, Advocate for
Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate
for respondent-HPSC (in CWP-34752 & 37156-2025).
*******
2 of 48
::: Downloaded on - 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -3-
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
1. This common judgment shall dispose of all the
abovementioned three writ petitions, as they arise from a similar factual
matrix and pose a common question of law. However, for the sake of
brevity, the facts are taken from CWP-34752-2025.
2. Present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India seeking the following:
(i) Issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of
impugned advertisement No.04/2025 dated 21.05.2025
(Annexure P-3), vide which no posts under Physically
Handicapped (OH) (for short ‘PH(OH)’) category for
recruitment as Scientist-B (Group B) in Haryana State
Pollution Control Board (HSPCB) were advertised.
(ii) Issuance of a writ the nature of certiorari for quashing of
impugned corrigendum dated 25.09.2025 (Annexure P-7),
whereby the number of posts for Scientist-B in HSPCB were
increased from 05 to 18, but no posts were notified under the
PH (OH) category.
(iii) Issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to accept the candidature of the petitioner in the
PH (OH) category for the post of Scientist-B in terms of
3 of 48
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -4-
advertisement No.04/2025 dated 21.05.2025 (Annexure P-3)
by creating a post.
(iv) Issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to call the petitioner for subject knowledge test
and further the selection process by granting him relaxation in
the advertisement (Annexure P-3) in terms of the applicable
government instructions (Annexures P-18 to P-23).
(v) Issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to decide the representation dated 16.06.2025
(Annexure P-6) moved by the petitioner.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
(i) CWP-34752-2025 [Sohan Singh]
3. Respondent No.2-Haryana Public Service Commission issued
advertisement No.04/2025 dated 21.05.2025 (Annexure P-3) for
recruitment to the post of Scientist-B (Group B) with respondent No.3-
HSPCB. A total of 05 vacancies were notified and the last date for
submission of online applications was set as 16.06.2025. However, no
posts were reserved for those with a physical disability. Moreover, the
post earmarked under the category of PH (OH) vide advertisement
No.9/2022, remained vacant and was required to be carried forward in
terms of the instructions dated 25.08.2018 and 21.07.2023 issued by the
4 of 48
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -5-
Government of Haryana. Since the needful was not done, the petitioner
moved a representation dated 16.06.2025 (Annexure P-4) regarding
compliance with Section 34 (2) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Act, 2016 (for short ‘RPWD Act‘) and the instructions dated 22.10.2013,
25.04.2018, 01.05.2019 and 11.07.2023.
4. Further, the petitioner, being eligible under the General/UR
category, applied for the said post and submitted all documents along with
his application form dated 16.06.2025 (Annexure P-5). As per the
announcement dated 16.07.2025 (Annexure P-6), the selection process
would include the following stages – screening test (100 marks), subject
knowledge test (150 marks) and interview. Thereafter, the respondent-
Commission issued a corrigendum dated 25.09.2025 (Annexure P-7)
increasing the number of advertised posts for Scientist-B from 05 to 18.
However, no reservation was provided under the PH (OH) category.
5. The petitioner received a letter dated 16.10.2025 (Annexure
P-9) stating that in pursuance of his request dated 29.09.2025, the
respondent-Commission has forwarded the matter to respondent No.1.
Meanwhile, the Screening Test was conducted, which the petitioner did
not qualify. Aggrieved by the lack of reserved posts for persons with
disabilities as well as the failure of the respondents to relax the standards
5 of 48
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -6-
of selection for such candidate, the petitioner has preferred the present
writ petition.
(ii) CWP-37099-2025 [Devender Aggarwal]
6. The respondent-Commission issued Advertisement No.20 of
2025 dated 13.08.2025 (Annexure P-5) for 29 posts of Assistant
Environmental Engineer (Group-B) with the respondent-HSPCB, out of
which 02 posts were kept reserved for the candidates falling under the
Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (Locomotor Disability or Cerebral
Palsy) category. Being otherwise eligible, the petitioner applied to the
said post under the PwBD (Locomotor Disability or Cerebral Palsy)
category. He appeared in the Screening Test held on 02.11.2025 and
qualified the same, as reflected by result dated 11.11.2025 (Annexure P-
6). Notably, out of a total of 18 candidates in the PwBD category, only 12
candidates qualified the Screening Test. Thereafter, a Subject Knowledge
Test was held on 25.11.2025, in which none of the 12 candidates secured
the minimum qualifying marks i.e. 35%. Thus, no candidates from the
PwBD category were invited for the Interview. Aggrieved by the lack of
relaxation in qualifying marks to fill the 02 posts reserved for candidates
from PwBD category, the petitioner has preferred the present writ
petition.
6 of 48
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -7-
(iii) CWP-37156-2025 [Naveen Kumar]
7. The respondent-Commission issued an advertisement No.20
of 2025 dated 13.08.2025 (Annexure P-1) for 29 posts of Assistant
Environmental Engineer (Group-B) in the respondent-HSPCB. Being
otherwise eligible, the petitioner applied for the same under EWS
category and PwBD (OH) sub-category, being affected by Cerebral Palsy.
Subsequently, vide announcement dated 02.09.2025 (Annexure P-4), the
respondent-Commission introduced minimum cut off marks for
qualification, which were not previously mentioned in the advertisement
(Annexure P-1). The petitioner qualified the Screening Test conducted on
02.11.2025, but could not clear the Subject Knowledge Test, as he did not
secure a minimum of 35% marks. The petitioner sent an email (Annexure
P-7) to the respondent-Commission stating that it was the second time
that no candidate from PwBD category could qualify the Subject
Knowledge Test due to the stringent criteria, unilaterally fixed by it.
Thereafter, he also moved a representation on 08.11.2025, flagging that
the candidates from the PwBD category could not be made to compete
with their able bodied counterparts, but to no avail. Aggrieved by the lack
of relaxation in qualification criteria, the petitioner preferred the present
writ petition.
7 of 48
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -8-
CONTENTIONS
(i) CWP-34752-2023 [Sohan Singh]
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is a highly qualified professional with a Ph.D. in Animal
Biotechnology, M.Phil.in Biotechnology, B.Ed., M.Sc. in Biotechnology
and a P.G. Diploma in Cyber Law and Intellectual Property Rights. The
petitioner also suffers 100% locomotor disability, as indicated by his
disability certificate (Annexure P-2) owing to PPRP bilateral lower limb
with scoliosis. Being otherwise eligible, the petitioner applied to the post
of Scientist-B in terms of the advertisement (supra) under the General/UR
category as no posts had been reserved for disabled candidates.
9. He further contended that 11 posts of Scientist-B in the
respondent-HSPCB were notified vide advertisement No.09/2022 out of
which, 01 post was earmarked for PH(OH) category. Since the same
remained vacant, it was required to be carried forward to the subsequent
recruitment process i.e. advertisement (supra), in terms of Instructions
dated 25.04.2018 (Annexure P-19). Further, as per the mandate of the
RPWD Act, a post was required to be identified and kept reserved for
persons with disabilities. However, in spite of there being an admitted
backlog, the advertisement (supra) did not reflect any reserved posts for
persons with disabilities.
8 of 48
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -9-
10. Further still, learned counsel referred to the instructions dated
15.07.2014 (Annexure P-18), 01.05.2019 (Annexure P-20) and
01.07.2022 (Annexure P-21) to submit that time and again, Government
of Haryana has directed for the general standards to be relaxed if
sufficient number of candidates are not available in the physically
disabled category in order to fill the vacant posts. Additionally, the Chief
Secretary to the Government of Haryana has issued Instructions dated
11.07.2023 (Annexure P-23) re-emphasizing the need to follow the settled
law to all concerned department/administrative secretaries (Annexures P-
18, P-20 and P-21). However, no such relaxations have been provided in
the present case. A total of 03 candidates in the PH(OH) category passed
the Screening Test but since they could not qualify the Subject
Knowledge Test with a minimum of 35 marks, they were not invited for
interview.
11. Learned counsel for respondent-Commission submitted that
the Commission has issued the advertisement (supra) on the basis of the
requisition received from the respondent-HSPCB, wherein no post was
earmarked for persons with disabilities. The respondent-Commission is
bound by the requisition and could not have made alterations to it in order
to earmark posts for candidates falling under the PH (OH) category.
Moreover, the petitioner had submitted his application in terms of
9 of 48
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -10-
advertisement (supra) without any protest and is thus bound by its terms
and conditions. In fact, he only raised an objection upon declaration of
result of the Screening Test, which the petitioner failed to clear. It is
further submitted that the petitioner appeared in the Subject Knowledge
Test and interview in terms of orders dated 21.11.2025 and 11.12.2025,
respectively and his result has been kept in sealed cover. Additionally, the
selection process stands completed as the final results for the post of
Scientist-B in respondent-HSPCB have already been declared on
16.12.2025 (Annexure R-3/4) whereby the names of 16 candidates were
recommended by the respondent-Commission. It would be relevant to
mention that 02 posts were kept vacant on account of clarification form
the Department/Government.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-HSPCB submitted
that inadvertently, the post reserved for PH(OH) category candidates was
not included in requisition dated 22.12.2023 for 05 posts of Scientist-B,
sent to the respondent-Commission. This error remained unnoticed even
when the requisition for an additional 13 posts was sent, pursuant to
which corrigendum dated 25.09.2025 was issued. Further, vide letter
dated 26.12.2025 (Annexure R-3/5), it was requested that the respondent-
Commission may be directed to consider 01 post for PH (OH) category
out of the 02 remaining vacant posts and recommend an eligible
10 of 48
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -11-
candidate from the said category. However, learned counsel referred to
the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.2408
of 2025 titled ‘Sachin Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others‘ decided
on 29.11.2025 wherein it was held that the fitness of the candidate would
be relevant consideration in order to maintain administrative efficiency
and thus, the threshold for minimum qualifying marks cannot be diluted
at all stages of a recruitment process.
(ii) CWP-37099-2025[Devender Aggarwal]
(iii) CWP-37156-2025 [Naveen Kumar]
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s), respectively, contended
that the minimum qualifying marks for the Subject Knowledge Test was
fixed at 35% vide announcement dated 02.09.2025 (Annexure P-4).
However, this criteria did not form a part of the advertisement dated
13.08.2025 (Annexure P-1), pursuant to which the petitioners had applied
for the post of Assistant Environmental Engineer with the respondent-
HSPCB. The subsequent introduction of an eligibility criteria is forbidden
in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tej
Prakash Pathak and others Vs. Rajasthan High Court and others,
(2025) 2 SCC 1 as it amounts to changing the rules of the game after the
same has already been set in motion. Furthermore, applying a uniform
qualifying criterion for candidates under the PwBD category and their
able-bodied counterparts is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
11 of 48
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -12-
India. Additionally, Section 4 of the RPWD Act, instructions dated
25.04.2018 (Annexure P-11), 01.05.2019 (Annexure P-13) and
01.07.2022 (Annexure P-14), as well as notifications dated 07.02.2023
and 11.07.2023 (Annexures P-15 and P-16, respectively) issued by the
Government of Haryana provides for relaxation of standards if sufficient
number of candidates from the PwBD category are not found eligible.
However, ignoring the same, the respondent-Commission has disqualified
the petitioner(s) as well as all other candidates from the PwBD category,
from the selection process, leaving the 02 posts earmarked for the PwBD
category vacant.
14. Learned counsel for the respondent-Commission argued that
it is incorrect to suggest that the qualifying criteria was issued after the
issuance of advertisement (Annexure P-1) as Clause 10 thereof clearly
states that the method of recruitment would be notified separately. The
announcement dated 02.09.2025 (Annexure P-4) merely detailed the
scheme of examination, much prior to conducting first stage of the
selection process and did not alter any essential conditions, as such, it
does not fall foul of Tej Prakash Pathak‘s case (supra). He further
submitted that in absence of a statutory rule prescribing the mode and
manner of selection, the respondent-Commission was well within its
rights to formulate a scheme for the same. As such it was decided that the
12 of 48
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -13-
minimum qualifying marks for the Screening Test would be 25% while
that for the Subject Knowledge Test would be 35%. Notably, the
petitioner(s) have not raised any grievance against the 25% cut-off marks
with respect to the Screening Test as both of them have cleared it. The
petitioner(s) participated in the selection process with full knowledge of
the prescribed criteria and did not raise any objection at any stage thereof.
It was only when they were declared unsuccessful in the Subject
Knowledge Test that the present challenge was raised. This approach is
proscribed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan Lal and others Vs.
State of Jammu and Kashmir, (1995) 3 SCC 486, State of U.P. Vs.
Karunesh Kumar, 2023 AIR SC 52 and Tejvir Singh Sodhi Vs. State of
Jammu and Kashmir, (2023) 17 SCC 147.
15. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no statutory
mandate binding the respondent-Commission to relax the minimum
qualifying marks. Section 34 of the RPWD Act provides for reservation
but does not stipulate lowering of standards of suitability to accommodate
candidates from the PwBD category. Further, the government instructions
referred to by the petitioner(s), envisages that the employer ‘may’ relax
the criteria. However, since the requisition sent to the respondent-
Commission by the respondent-HSPCB did not mention anything
regarding grant of any such relaxation, the respondent-Commission
13 of 48
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -14-
cannot employ the same on its own. Reliance in this regard is also placed
on Sachin Kumar‘s case (supra).
16. Learned counsel for respondent-HSPCB, on the other hand,
submitted that in the year 2023, the respondent-HSPCB had sent a
requisition vide letters dated 03.05.2023 and 21.06.2023 (Annexure R-3/1
and 3/2 in CWP-37156-2025) to fill up 54 posts of Assistant
Environmental Engineer. In furtherance of the same, 25 candidates were
recommended for appointment by the respondent-Commission. However,
the 02 posts reserved for the PwBD category therein- 01 for general (PH)
and 01 for EWS (PH) remained vacant as no candidate from the said
category were found eligible.
17. Thereafter, another requisition was sent by the respondent-
HSPCB for 29 posts of Assistant Environmental Engineer vide letter
dated 05.02.2025, wherein 02 posts were reserved for candidates from
PwBD category- 01 for general (PH) and 01 for EWS (PH). In response
to this requisition, the respondent-Commission recommended 29
candidates vide letter dated 16.12.2025 (Annexure R-3/5 in CWP-37156-
2025). However, since no candidate from the PwBD category was found
eligible again, the respondent-Commission recommended two other
candidates namely- Abhimanyu Balyan (Roll No.27014, category
14 of 48
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -15-
General/UR), who is at serial No.03 in the merit list and Aakash (Roll
No.17497 category EWS), who is at serial No.20 in the merit list against
the reserved posts. Both the aforementioned candidates are the next
eligible candidates in the lists for their respective merit categories. Should
the reserved posts for PwBD category be de-reserved, in terms of
instructions dated 25.04.2018 (Annexure R-3/6) issued by the Chief
Secretary to the Government of Haryana, the abovementioned candidates
deserve consideration for appointment. As of now, appointment letters
have not been issued to Abhimanyu Balyan and Aakash, as the issue of
de-reservation is under consideration.
OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS
18. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after
perusing the record of the aforementioned writ petitions, it transpires that
the petitioner(s) have approached this Court well in time, i.e. immediately
after the commencement of the selection process and they were
provisionally permitted to participate in the subsequent stages of selection
process through interim orders. Thus, it is not a case where unsuccessful
candidates have agitated their claims after completion of the selection
process. As such, this Court is required to adjudicate the issue of
15 of 48
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -16-
relaxation in selection criteria raised by them in the present writ
petition(s).
19. The respondent-HSPCB in CWP-34752-2025 has conceded
that no posts were earmarked for persons with disabilities out of an
inadvertent error on its part. Moreover, petitioner-Sohan Singh was
allowed to provisionally appear for the Subject Knowledge Test as well as
the Interview in terms of orders dated 21.11.2025 and 11.12.2025 passed
by this Court. Thus, this issue does not merit further discussion.
20. However, the common malady highlighted in all three of the
aforementioned writ petitions pertains to denial of any relaxation with
respect to the qualifying criteria to the candidates with disabilities.
Therefore, the following question is framed for adjudication by this
Court:
“Whether relaxation in the selection criteria with respect to
persons with disabilities is constitutionally and
jurisprudentially justified and warranted?”
x Constitutional and Statutory Protections to Persons with
Disabilities
21. The Preamble to the Constitution of India outlines the core
values and guiding philosophy of the State and in that capacity, makes an
16 of 48
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -17-
enduring promise of social justice and equality of status and opportunity
to all its citizens. The Constitution is clear in its mandate that all citizens
shall be considered equal in the eyes of law and be provided with equal
opportunities. However, the fact that certain sections of the society are
more vulnerable than others has also been duly considered by the framers
as evidenced by introduction of provisions enabling the State to make
special accommodations in their benefit. On that note, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the disadvantages faced by persons with disabili-
ties are not limited to existence of physical or mental impairments, but are
also rooted in social and institutional barriers that restrict their equal par-
ticipation in everyday life.
22. The notion of ableism holds able-bodiedness to be a superior
state of being, which often results in fewer educational and employment
opportunities for persons with disabilities, irrespective of capabilities.
Notably, students with disabilities may not respond to the same method of
teaching as their able-bodied counterparts, yet they are not always pro-
vided with resources like assistive learning softwares, sign language inter-
preters, inclusive infrastructure etc. to ensure that they attain their learn-
ing goals. Even if one completes their educational training, persons with
disabilities often struggle with finding opportunities of employment as
they are viewed as inefficient workers and a liability to the employer.
17 of 48
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -18-
Such a primitive approach is antithetical to the constitutional guarantees.
As also noted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jeeja Ghosh and an-
other Vs. Union of India and others, (2016) 7 SCC 761, a disability does
not disentitle a person from seeking fulfillment in terms of education, ca-
reer and personal life, and thus, their rights ought to be looked at from a
human rights lens. Speaking through Justice A.K. Sikri, the following was
observed:
“39. In international human rights law, equality is founded upon
two complementary principles: non-discrimination and reasonable
differentiation. The principle of non-discrimination seeks to ensure
that all persons can equally enjoy and exercise all their rights and
freedoms. Discrimination occurs due to arbitrary denial of
opportunities for equal participation. For example, when public
facilities and services are set on standards out of the reach of
persons with disabilities, it leads to exclusion and denial of
rights. Equality not only implies preventing discrimination
(example, the protection of individuals against unfavourable
treatment by introducing anti-discrimination laws), but goes
beyond in remedying discrimination against groups suffering
systematic discrimination in society. In concrete terms, it means
embracing the notion of positive rights, affirmative action and
reasonable accommodation. The move from the patronising and
paternalistic approach to persons with disabilities represented by
the medical model to viewing them as members of the community
with equal rights has also been reflected in the evolution of
international standards relating specifically to disabilities, as well
as in moves to place the rights of persons with disabilities within
the category of universal human rights. {See – Report of United
Nations Consultative Expert Group Meeting on International
Norms and Standards Relating to Disability 10-2-2001}.
xxx xxx xxx
42. …What is to be borne in mind is that they are also
human beings and they have to grow as normal persons and are to
be extended all facilities in this behalf. The subject of the rights of
persons with disabilities should be approached from human rights
perspective, which recognised that persons with disabilities were
entitled to enjoy the full range of internationally guaranteed rights
18 of 48
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -19-
and freedoms without discrimination on the ground of disability.
This creates an obligation on the part of the State to take positive
measures to ensure that in reality persons with disabilities get
enabled to exercise those rights. There should be insistence on
the full measure of general human rights guarantees in the case
of persons with disabilities, as well as developing specific
instruments that refine and given detailed contextual content of
those general guarantees. There should be a full recognition of
the fact that persons with disability were integral part of the
community, equal in dignity and entitled to enjoy the same human
rights and freedoms as others. It is a sad commentary that this
perceptions has not sunk in the mind and souls of those who are
not concerned with the enforcement of these rights. The persons
suffering from mental or physical disability experience and
encounter nonpareil form of discrimination. They are not looked
down by people. However, they are not accepted in the main
stream either even when people sympathies with them. Most
common, their lives are handicapped by social, cultural and
attitudinal barriers which hamper their full participation and
enjoyment of equal rights and opportunities. This is the worst form
of discrimination which disabled feel as their grievance is that
others do not understand them.
xxx xxx xxx
45. It is the common experience of several persons with
disabilities that they are unable to lead a full life due to societal
barriers and discrimination faced by them in employment, access
to public spaces, transportation etc. Persons with disability are
most neglected lot not only in the society but also in the family.
More often they are an object of pity. There are hardly any
meaningful attempts to assimilate them in the mainstream of the
nation’s life. The apathy towards their problems is so pervasive
that even the number of disabled persons existing in the country is
not well documented.”
(emphasis added)
23. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to note that the fol-
lowing provisions of the Constitution of India provide for the right to
equality and the State’s duty to realize the same, especially with respect to
persons with disabilities:
19 of 48
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -20-
The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or
the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India
(1)There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters
relating to employment or appointment to any office under the
State.
(4) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any
provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of
any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is
not adequately represented in the services under the State.
No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure established by law.
The State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and
development, make effective provision for securing the right to
work, to education and to public assistance in cases of
unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other
cases of undeserved want.
xxx xxx xxx
9. Safeguarding the interests of weaker sections of society,
including the handicapped and mentally retarded.”
24. A special legislation titled as Persons With Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for
short ‘Act of 1955’) was put in place to formalize the protections intended
to be provided to persons with disabilities and practically assist them in
overcoming societal and psychological impediments, amongst others. The
Act of 1955 was succeeded by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
20 of 48
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -21-
2016 (RPWD Act). The relevant provisions of the RPWD Act with re-
spect to the matter at hand are listed below:
“2. Definitions.–
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,–
(y) “reasonable accommodation” means 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
3. Equality and non-discrimination.–
(1) The appropriate Government shall ensure that the persons
with disabilities enjoy the right to equality, life with dignity
and respect for his or her integrity equally with others.
(2) The appropriate Government shall take steps to utilise the
capacity of persons with disabilities by providing appropriate
environment.
(3) No person with disability shall be discriminated on the
ground of disability, unless it is shown that the impugned act or
omission is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate
aim.
(4) No person shall be deprived of his or her personal liberty
only on the ground of disability.
(5) The appropriate Government shall take necessary steps to
ensure reasonable accommodation for persons with
disabilities.
33. Identification of posts for reservation.–
The appropriate Government shall–
(i) identify posts in the establishments which can be held by
respective category of persons with benchmark disabilities in
respect of the vacancies reserved in accordance with the
provisions of section 34;
(ii) constitute an expert committee with representation of
persons with benchmark disabilities for identification of such
posts; and
21 of 48
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -22-
(iii) undertake periodic review of the identified posts at an
interval not exceeding three years.
34. Reservation.–
(1) Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every
Government establishment, not less 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 attack victims and muscular dystro-
phy;
(d) autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disabil-
ity and mental illness;
(e) multiple disabilities from amongst persons under
clauses (a) to (d) including deaf-blindness in the posts iden-
tified for each disabilities:
Provided that the reservation in promotion shall be in ac-
cordance with such instructions as are issued by the appropriate
Government from time to time:
Provided further that the appropriate Government, in con-
sultation 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.
(2) Where in any recruitment year any vacancy cannot be filled
up due to non-availability of a suitable person with benchmark
disability or for any other sufficient reasons, such vacancy shall
be carried forward in the succeeding recruitment year and if in
the succeeding recruitment year also suitable person with
benchmark disability is not available, it may first be filled by in-
terchange among the five categories and only when there is no
22 of 48
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -23-
person with disability available for the post in that year, the em-
ployer shall fill up the vacancy by appointment of a person,
other than a person with disability:
Provided that if the nature of vacancies in an establishment
is such that a given category of person cannot be employed, the
vacancies may be interchanged among the five categories with the
prior approval of the appropriate Government.
(3) The appropriate Government may, by notification, provide for
such relaxation of upper age limit for employment of persons with
benchmark disability, as it thinks fit.”
(emphasis added)
25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in In Re: Recruitment of Vis-
ually Impaired in Judicial Services, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 481 has
opined that the RPWD Act has acquired the status of a super-statute as it
not only illustrates the intention but also establishes an institutional
framework that guides the law. In fact, it was observed that the RPWD
Act contains ingredients of a quasi-constitutional law. On that note, in
furtherance of the constitutional promises of a life of dignity and equal
opportunities in all spheres, the RPWD Act calls upon the State to create
opportunities where the capabilities of persons with disabilities can be ap-
propriately utilized. Significantly, it mandates that accommodations be
made in their favour by modifying standards as and where necessary to
grant equal opportunities. It also makes it incumbent upon the State to
identify posts suitable for persons with disabilities, with special emphasis
on persons with benchmark disabilities, and reserve a percentage of such
posts for them.
23 of 48
::: Downloaded on - 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -24-
x Modification of Selection Criteria
26. Tritely, equal treatment to unequals does not always yield eq-
uitable results. Since most norms and criteria are established by the able-
bodied for the able-bodied, it might seem that setting a common qualify-
ing standard for all classes of candidates is obvious and innocuous. How-
ever, once the systemic imbalance that tilts against persons with disabili-
ties is accounted for, it is made obvious that all classes of candidates can-
not be judged against the same scale, when their circumstances are not
identical.
27. In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services
(supra), a two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was faced
with a situation where the candidates, visually impaired and able-bodied
alike, were required to have 03 years of practice experience or 70% marks
in the examination, in the first attempt. Applying the principle of indirect
discrimination it was held that the visually impaired and able-bodied can-
didates do not face the same level of difficulty in acquiring the said marks
or practicing law for the requisite duration, as such, they cannot be sub-
jected to the same criterion. Speaking through Justice R. Mahadevan, the
following was opined:
“46. Thus, the principle of indirect discrimination hereinbefore
applied to counter gender-based discrimination, can also be
applied to the facts of the present case, where disabled/visually24 of 48
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -25-impaired legal practitioners are sought to be equated with their
able-bodied counterparts in the matter of application of certain
conditions for participation for selection to the post of judicial
officers. Applying such a test of indirect discrimination, the ease
of practice as well as the securing of marks cannot be said to be
an equal condition to both classes of citizens, viz., disabled and
ablebodied lawyers, given that the atmosphere in which they
operate cannot be said to be the same. This is also a perfect
example of how unequals are sought to be treated equally, and
that itself would be a negation of the principle of substantive
equality. Therefore, it can easily be inferred that the rule relating
to practice or in the alternative, to secure 70% in the first attempt
in the examinations, is a case of indirect discrimination as the
provisions are facially neutral but discriminatory in operation. In
view of the same, Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service
Rules, 1994, to the extent it prescribes the additional requirement
of either a three-year practice period or securing an aggregate
score of 70% in the first attempt, is liable to be struck down
insofar as it applies to PwD candidates. Accordingly, the
impugned Rule will be applicable to 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 should be
in the first attempt or that they should have three years’ practice.
This issue stands answered in the said terms.”
(emphasis added)
28. The legislative intent to make reasonable accommodations for
persons with disabilities is rather palpable throughout the RPWD Act. It
25 of 48
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -26-
must be understood that when recruitment process in under consideration,
relaxing the selection criteria, in view of the disadvantages faced by
persons with disabilities, is imperative to achieve substantive equality in
furtherance of the statutory promise of ‘reasonable accommodation.’ The
reservation of posts in favour of persons with disabilities would be
rendered redundant if they are judged on the exact same criteria as their
able bodied counterparts. Further, the failure of the State-employer to
carry forward the vacant posts reserved for persons with disabilities or de-
reserve them would reduce the RPWD Act to a dead letter.
29. In his book titled as ‘Equality,’ R.H. Tawney has postulated
that equality of opportunity demands active removal of social and
systemic impediments that hinders individuals from realizing their
capabilities. An extract from the said book is reproduced below:
“The truth is that it is absurd and degrading for men to make
much of their intellectual and moral superiority to each other and
still more of their superiority in the arts which bring wealth and
power, because, judged by their place in any universal scheme,
they are infinitely great or infinitely small………… The equality
which all these thinkers emphasise as desirable is not equality of
capacity or attainment but of circumstances, and institutions, and
manner of life. The inequality which they deplore is not the
inequality of personal gifts, but of the social and economic
environment …………. Their view, in short, is that, because men are
men, social institutions, property rights, and the organisation of
industry, and the system of public health and education should be
planned, as far as is possible to emphasise and strengthen, not the
class differences which divide but the common humanity which
unite, them.”
26 of 48
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -27-
30. Equality does not mean uniform treatment of all, regardless of
their circumstances. To achieve substantive equality, the State must en-
deavor to dismantle the social and economic barriers that impede persons
with disabilities from realizing their full potential and only then, can gen-
uine opportunities become truly accessible to them. Accordingly, the em-
phasis must be on ensuring real and effective access rather than mechani-
cal uniformity. This approach resonates with the constitutional philosophy
enshrined under Articles 14, 15, 16 & 41 of the Constitution of India,
which permits reasonable classification, protective discrimination and af-
firmative measures in order to alleviate structural disadvantages. Persons
with disabilities do not enter the competition at an equal footing with
their able-bodied counterparts, thus, imposing uniform standards only fur-
ther entrenches inequality under the guise of impartiality. Thus, relax-
ations by way of age concessions, modified selection criteria etc. are jus-
tified and warranted in order to propagate equality, as intended by the
framers of the Constitution. Such actions fall under the ambit of ‘reason-
able accommodations’ as provided in the RPWD Act and without making
these special considerations, the promise of a fulfilling life made to the
disabled citizens would ring hollow. As such, relaxation in selection
process is a necessary instrument for achieving genuine, substantive and
transformative equality.
27 of 48
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -28-
31. A Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indra
Sawhney Vs. Union of India, 1993 AIR SC 477, consisting of 09 Judges,
speaking through Justice S. Ratnavael Pandian, made the following obser-
vations in this regard: –
“831. We must also make it clear that it would not be impermissi-
ble for the State to extend concessions and relaxations to mem-
bers of reserved categories in the matter of promotion without
compromising the efficiency of the administration. The relax-
ation concerned in Thomas [(1976) 2 SCC 310, 380 :1976 scc
(l&s) 227: (1976) 1 SCR 906)] and the concessions namely carry-
ing forward of vacancies and provisions for in-service coaching/
training in Karamchari Sangh [(1981) 1 SCC 246, 289 : 1981
SCC(L&S) 50: (1981) 2 SCR 185, 234] are instances of such con-
cessions and relaxations. However, it would not be permissible to
prescribe lower qualifying marks or a lesser level of evaluation
for the members of reserved categories since that would compro-
mise the efficiency of administration. We reiterate that while it
may be permissible to prescribe a reasonably lesser qualifying
marks or evaluation for the OBCs, SCs and STs- consistent with
the efficiency of administration and the nature of duties attaching
to the office concerned – in the matter of direct recruitment, such a
course would not be permissible in the matter of promotions for
reasons recorded hereinabove.
xxx xxx xxx
836. We do not think it necessary to express ourselves at any
length on the correctness or otherwise of the opposing points of
view referred to above. (It is, however, necessary to point out that
the mandate – if it can be called that – of Article 335 is to take the
claims of members of SC/ST into consideration, consistent with
the maintenance of efficiency of administration. It would be a mis-
reading of Article to say that the mandate is maintenance of effi-
ciency of administration.) May be, efficiency, competence and
merit are not synonymous concepts; May be, it is wrong to treat
merit as synonymous with efficiency in administration and that
merit is but a component of the efficiency of an administrator.
Even so, the relevance and significance of merit at the stage of
initial recruitment cannot be ignored. It cannot also be ignored
that the very idea of reservation implies selection of a less meri-
28 of 48
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -29-torious person. At the same time, we recognise that this much
cost has to be paid, if the, constitutional promise of social justice
is to be redeemed. We also firmly believe that given an opportu-
nity, members of these classes are bound to overcome their ini-
tial disadvantages and would compete with – and may, in some
cases, excel – members of open competitor candidates. It is unde-
niable that nature has endowed merit upon members of backward
classes as much as it has endowed upon members of other classes
and that what is required is an opportunity to prove it. It may not,
therefore, be said that reservations are antimeritian. Merit there
is even among the reserved candidates and the small difference,
that may be allowed at the stage of initial recruitment is bound
to disappear in course of time. These members too will compete
with and improve their efficiency along with others.”
(emphasis added)
32. As such, in the matter at hand, the appointing authority i.e.
ultimately the Government of Haryana is competent to relax the minimum
qualifying marks, as permitted by Indra Sawhney‘s case (supra),
especially in view of the multiple instructions issued by it in this regard.
The same are reproduced below: –
“Instructions dated 25.04.2018 (Annexure P-11 in CWP-37099-
2025)
“Subject: Reservation for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities:
xxx xxx xxx
M) EXCHANGE AND CARRY FORWARD OF RESERVATION
IN CASE OF DIRECT RECRUITMENT:
(i) Reservation for each of the four categories of persons with
benchmark disabilities shall be made separately. But if the nature
of vacancies in an establishment is such that a person of a
specific category of disability cannot be employed, the
vacancies may be interchanged among the four categories with
the approval of the Social Justice & Empowerment Department
and reservation may be determined and vacancies filled
accordingly.
(ii) If any vacancy reserved for any category of disability cannot
be filled due to non- availability of a suitable person with that29 of 48
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -30-disability or, for any other sufficient reason, such vacancy shall be
carried forward to the subsequent recruitment year.
(iii) In the subsequent recruitment year the carried forward
vacancy shall be treated as reserved for the category of disability
for which it was kept reserved in the initial year of recruitment.
However, if a suitable person with that disability is not available,
it may be filled by interchange among the four categories of
disabilities. In case no suitable person with benchmark
disabilities is available for filling up the post in the subsequent
year also, the employer may fill up the vacancy by appointment
of a person other than a person with disability.”
-Instructions 15.07.2014 (Annexure 12 in CWP-37099-2025)
“Subject: Grant of reservation in Jobs under
Government/Government Undertakings & Local Bodies as well
as in admission in Government/Government aided
educational/technical/ Professional institutions.
xxx xxx xxx
L) INTER SE EXCHANGE AND CARRY FORWARD OF
RESERVATION IN CASE OF DIRECT RECRUITMENT:
a) Reservation for each of the three categories of persons with
disabilities shall be made separately. But if the nature of vacan-
cies in an establishment is such that a person of a specific cate-
gory of disability cannot be employed, the vacancies may be in-
terchanged among the three categories with the approval of the
Department of Social Justice & Empowerment and reservation
may be determined and vacancies filled accordingly.
b) If any vacancy reserved for any category of disability cannot be
filled due to non-availability of a suitable person with that disabil-
ity or, for any other sufficient reason, such vacancy shall not be
filled and shall be carried forward as a ‘backlog reserved va-
cancy’ to the subsequent recruitment year.
30 of 48
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -31-
c) In the subsequent recruitment year the ‘backlog reserved va-
cancy’ shall be treated as reserved for the category of disability
for which it was kept reserved in the initial year of recruitment.
However, if a suitable person with that disability is not available,
it may be filled by interchange among the three categories of
disabilities. In case no suitable person with disability is available
for filling up the post in the subsequent year also, the employer
may fill up the vacancy by appointment of a person other than a
person with disability. If the vacancy is filled by a person with dis-
ability of the category for which it was reserved or by a person of
other category of disability by inter se exchange in the subsequent
recruitment year, it will be treated to have been filled by reserva-
tion. But if the vacancy is filled by a person other than a person
with disability in the subsequent recruitment year, reservation
shall be carried forward for a further period upto two recruitment
years whereafter the reservation shall lapse. In these two subse-
quent years, if situation so arises, the procedure for filling up the
reserved vacancy shall be the same as followed in the first subse-
quent recruitment year.
In order to ensure that cases of lapse of reservation are kept
to the minimum, any recruitment of the disabled candidates shall
first be counted against the additional quota brought forward
from previous years, if any, in their chronological order. If candi-
dates are not available for all the vacancies, the older carried for-
ward reservation would be filled first and the relatively later car-
ried forward reservation would be further carried forward.
xxx xxx xxx
O) RELAXATION OF STANDARD OF SUITABILITY:
If sufficient number of persons with disabilities are not
available on the basis of the general standard to fill all the va-
cancies reserved for them, candidates belonging to this category
may be selected on relaxed standard to fill up the remaining va-
cancies reserved for them provided they are not found unfit for
such post or posts. Thus, to the extent the number of vacancies re-
served for persons with disabilities cannot be filled on the basis of
31 of 48
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -32-
general standards, candidates belonging to this category may be
taken by relaxing the standards to make up the deficiency in the
reserved quota subject to the fitness of these candidates for ap-
pointment to the post/posts in question.”
-Instructions dated 01.05.2019 (Annexure P-13 in CWP-37099-
2025)
“Subject: Reservation for the Persons with Benchmark Disabili-
ties in case of direct recruitment to Govt. jobs.
xxx xxx xxx
Q) RELAXATION OF STANDARD OF SUITABILITY:
i) If sufficient numbers of candidates with benchmark disabili-
ties candidates are not available on the basis of the general stan-
dard to fill all the vacancies reserved for them, candidates be-
longing to this category may be selected on relaxed standard to
fill up the remaining vacancies reserved for them provided they
are not found unfit for such post or posts. However, this provi-
sion shall not be used to allow any relaxation in the eligibility
criteria laid down for the issuance of certificate of disability.
ii) Same relaxed standard should be applied for all the candidates
with Benchmark Disabilities whether they belong to Unreserved/
SC/BC. No further relaxation of standards will be considered or
admissible in favour of any candidate from any category whatso-
ever.”
-Instructions dated 01.07.2022 (Annexure P-14 in CWP-37099-
2025)
“Subject: Grant of Reservation in Promotion to the Persons with
Benchmark Disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Dis-
abilities Act, 2016.
xxx xxx xxx
32 of 48
::: Downloaded on - 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -33-
9. RELAXATION OF STANDARD OF SUITABILITY:
9.1 If sufficient number of PwBD candidates with benchmark dis-
abilities are not available on the basis of prescribed standard to
fill all the vacancies (in case of promotion through Limited De-
partmental Competitive Examination/ Departmental Examination,
etc.) reserved for them, candidates belonging to this category may
be selected on relaxed standard to fill up the remaining vacancies
reserved for them, provided they are not found unfit for such post
or posts. However, this provision shall not be used to allow any
relaxation in the eligibility criteria laid down for the issuance of
certificate of benchmark disability.
9.2 The same relaxed standard should be applied for all the
PwBD candidates with benchmark disabilities, irrespective of
whether they belong to the Unreserved/Scheduled Caste/Back-
ward Classes category. No further relaxation of standards will be
considered or admissible in favour of any candidate from any cat-
egory whatsoever.
xxx xxx xxx
14. ZONE OF CONSIDERATION, INTERSE EXCHANGE AND
CARRY FORWARD OF RESERVATION IN CASE OF PROMO-
TION
14.1 While filling up the reserved vacancies by promotion by se-
lection, those PWBD candidates who are within the normal zone
of consideration shall be considered for promotion. However, if
adequate number of PWBD candidates of the respective category
are not available within the normal zone, the zone of considera-
tion may be extended to five times the number of vacancies and
the PwBD candidate falling within the extended zone may be con-
sidered for promotion. In the event of non-availability of candi-
dates even in the extended zone, the vacancy shall not be filled
and be carried forward to the subsequent year. In the subsequent
year, if a PwBD of the required category is not available, the
reservation can be exchanged with the other categories, so that
post can be filled by a person with other category of disability, if
33 of 48
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -34-
possible. If a PwBD candidate of other category is within the zone
of consideration and within the number of vacancies available, he
cannot be denied promotion on the grounds of disability. If it is
not possible to fill up the post by reservation even in the 2nd year,
the post may be filled by a person other than a PwBD, and the
reservation shall be carried forward for two subsequent recruit-
ment years, whereafter it shall lapse.
14.2 While filling up vacancies by promotion by non-selection, the
eligible candidates with benchmark disabilities within the normal
zone of consideration shall be considered for promotion against
the reserved vacancies. In case no eligible candidate of the re-
spective category of disability is available in the normal zone of
consideration, additional PwBD candidates of respective category
to the extent required shall be considered by going down the se-
niority list, provided they are eligible, and that the post is identi-
fied for them. In the event of non-availability of PwBD candidates
for promotion even in the extended zone, the vacancy shall not be
filled and shall be carried forward. In the subsequent year if
PwBD of respective category is not available, the same can be ex-
changed with other categories of disabilities identified for it. If it
is not possible to fill up the vacancy by reservation even by ex-
change, the reservation shall be carried forward for two subse-
quent recruitment years, whereafter it shall lapse
14.3 In order to ensure that cases of lapse of reservation are kept
to the minimum, any recruitment of the PwBD candidates shall
first be counted against the vacant posts brought forward from
previous years, if any, in the chronological order. If candidates are
not available for all the vacancies, the older carried-forward
posts shall be filled first, and the current vacancies shall be car-
ried forward, if not filled up, provided that in every recruitment,
the number of vacancies reserved for PWBD, including the car-
ried forward vacancies, shall be announced beforehand for the in-
formation of all aspirants.”
-Instructions dated 11.07.2023 (Annexure P-16 in CWP-37099-
2025)
34 of 48
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -35-
“Subject: Grant of Reservation in Promotion to the Persons with
Benchmark Disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Dis-
abilities Act, 2016.
xxx xxx xxx
6. IDENTIFICATION OF POSTS:-
6.1 The State Government, Department of Social Justice& Em-
powerment, Haryana has already adopted the list of identified
posts circulated by the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment
(Department of Disability Affairs), Government of India, New
Delhi vide their Notification No. 38-16/2020-DDIII dated 4th Jan-
uary, 2021. The adoption of such ‘list’ by the State Government
was conveyed vide notification bearing No.459-SW(4)/2021, dated
25th October, 2021 of the Social Justice & Empowerment Depart-
ment, Haryana.
The ‘list’ of posts is not an exhaustive list. The Departments, Pub-
lic Sector Undertakings and the Autonomous Bodies can fur-
ther supplement the list. If a post is already held by a person with
disability, it shall be deemed to have been identified. The nomen-
clature used in the ‘list’ includes any other nomenclature used for
comparable posts with functions identical to the posts identified in
the said notification.
9. RELAXATION OF STANDARD OF SUITABILITY:-
9.1 If sufficient number of PwBD candidates with benchmark
disabilities are not available on the basis of prescribed standard
to fill all the vacancies (in case of promotion through Limited De-
partmental Competitive Examination/ Departmental Examination,
etc.) reserved for them, candidates belonging to this category may
be selected on relaxed standard to fill up the remaining vacancies
reserved for them, provided they are not found unfit for such post
or posts. However, this provision shall not be used to allow any
relaxation in the eligibility criteria laid down for the issuance of
certificate of benchmark disability.
35 of 48
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -36-
9.2 The same relaxed standard should be applied for all the
PwBD candidates with benchmark disabilities, irrespective of
whether they belong to the Unreserved/Scheduled Caste/Back-
ward Classes category. No further relaxation of standards will be
considered or admissible in favour of any candidate from any cat-
egory whatsoever.”
(emphasis added)
33. A perusal of the aforementioned instructions makes it clear
that in the absence of a suitable number of candidates against the posts
reserved for persons with disabilities, it was intended that the criteria of
selection be relaxed. Further still, a cumulative reading of the above also
indicates that in case posts reserved for persons with benchmark
disabilities remain vacant, it was preferable to relax the criteria, carry the
unoccupied posts forward to the next recruitment year or fill the same
from other categories of disabled persons, before recruiting able-bodied
candidates against them. However, it appears that in CWP-37099-2025
and CWP-37156-2023 i.e. Devender Aggarwal’s case and Naveen
Kumar‘s case, the respondent-Commission has chosen to cherry pick
from the instructions dated 25.04.2018 (Annexure P-11 in CWP-37099-
2025) in order to provisionally appoint Abhimanyu Balyan and Aakash,
rather than attempt at filling the same from amongst the pool of
candidates from the PH category, for whom the reservation was originally
made. Similarly, in CWP-34752-2025 i.e. Sohan Singh‘s case, though
admittedly without malice, no post was reserved in the first place for
36 of 48
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -37-
candidates from the PH category, let alone granting concessions with
regards to the qualifying marks in the Subject Knowledge Test for such
candidates.
34. While Sections 2(y) and 3 of the RPWD Act, as well as the
instructions (supra) issued by the Government of Haryana, provide for
making reasonable accommodations to create an environment conducive
enough for the persons with disabilities to participate in the selection
process for public employment, their purpose would be rendered
irrelevant if these promises are not put to practice. Creating a selection
criteria where disabled candidates are measured against their able-bodied
counterparts without taking into account the inherent disadvantage faced
by them, falls foul of the statutory and constitutional guarantees provided
to them. A three-Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vikash
Kumar Vs. Union Public Service Commission, (2021) 5 SCC 370,
speaking through Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, illustrated the principle
of reasonable accommodation in the following manner: –
“35. The principle of reasonable accommodation captures the
positive obligation of the State and private parties to provide
additional support to persons with disabilities to facilitate their
full and effective participation in society. The concept of
reasonable accommodation is developed in section (H) below. For
the present, suffice it to say that, for a person with disability, the
constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights to equality, the
six freedoms and the right to life under Article 21 will ring
hollow if they are not given this additional support that helps
make these rights real and meaningful for them. Reasonable
37 of 48
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -38-
accommodation is the instrumentality – are an obligation as a
society – to enable the disabled to enjoy the constitutional
guarantee of equality and non-discrimination. In this context, it
would be apposite to remember Justice R M Lodha’s (as he then
was) observation in Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v.
Union of India, (2018) 2 SCC 397, where he stated:
“9…In the matters of providing relief to those who are
differently abled, the approach and attitude of the executive
must be liberal and relief oriented and not obstructive or
lethargic…”
xxx xxx xxx
45. The principle of reasonable 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.”
(emphasis added)
35. Further, a three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal Vs. Union of India, 2021(3) SCR 823 un-
derlined that formal equality may not always translate into substantive
equality. Speaking through Justice Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, the fol-
lowing was opined: –
“28. Article 14 of the Indian Constitution states that “the State
shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal
protection of the laws within the territory of India”. The right to
equality under the Indian Constitution has two facets – formal
equality and substantive equality. While formal equality means
that every person, irrespective of their attributes must be treated
equally and must not be discriminated against; substantive
equality is aimed at producing equality of outcomes through
different modes of affirmative action. The principle of
reasonable accommodation is one of the means for achieving
substantive equality, pursuant to which disabled individuals38 of 48
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -39-must be reasonably accommodated based on their individual
capacities. Disability, as a social construct, precedes the medical
condition of an individual. The sense of disability is introduced
because of the absence of access to facilities.”
(emphasis added)
35.2. A two-Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kabir
Paharia Vs. National Medical Commission, 2025 AIR SC 2861,
speaking through Justice Sandeep Mehta, opined as follows:
“5. The constitutional promise of equality is not merely formal
but substantive, requiring the State to take affirmative measures
to ensure that PwD and PwBD can meaningfully participate in
all spheres of life, including professional education. We
emphasize that reasonable accommodation is not a matter of
charity but a fundamental right flowing from Articles 14, 16,
and 21 of our Constitution. When administrative authorities
create arbitrary barriers that exclude qualified PwBD candidates,
they not only violate statutory provisions but also perpetuate the
historical injustice and stigmatisation. The fundamental rights and
the dignity of PwD and PwBD candidates must be protected by
ensuring that assessment of their capabilities is individualised,
evidence-based, and free from stereotypical assumptions that have
no scientific foundation.”
(emphasis added)
35.3. A three-Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Om
Rathod Vs. Director General of Health Services, 2024 SCC OnLine SC
3130, speaking through Dr. Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, held as
follows: –
“28. Justice KV Viswanathan speaking for this Court in Omkar
Gond (supra) has applied a purposive interpretation to the
guidelines (Appendix “H-1”) in the context of a medical aspirant
with dialectic incapacity. This Court held that the principle of
reasonable accommodation in Section 2(y) of the RPWD Act39 of 48
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -40-read with Article 41 of the Constitution necessarily means that
(i) a person cannot be disqualified merely on the basis of a
benchmark quantification. Such a criteria would be
unconstitutional for being overbroad; (ii) the Disability
Assessment Board must not act as monotonous automations
looking at the quantified disability and disqualifying candidates.
The Board must examine if the candidate can pursue the course
with their disability; and (iii) in doing so, the Board is not merely
obliged to provide assistive devices and other substances which
will help the candidate. The true role of the Board is to assess the
competence of a candidate.
29. The principle of reasonable accommodation is not only
statutorily prescribed but also rooted in the fundamental rights
guaranteed to persons with disabilities under Part III of the
Constitution. Reasonable accommodation is a fundamental right.
It is a gateway right for persons with disabilities to enjoy all the
other rights enshrined in the Constitution and the law. Without
the gateway right of reasonable accommodation, a person with
disability is forced to navigate in a world which excludes them by
design. It strikes a fatal blow to their ability to make life choices
and pursue opportunities. From mundane tasks of daily life to
actions undertaken to realise personal and professional
aspirations – all are throttled when reasonable accommodations
are denied. Reasonable accommodation is a facet of substantive
equality and its failure constitutes discrimination. In Vikash
Kumar v. UPSC, (2021) 5 SCC 370 this Court adjudicated on
whether a person with a writer’s cramp is entitled to a scribe for
writing the examination. Allowing the use of a scribe, this Court
held that the benchmark standard can only be applied where
expressly stipulated. Section 2(s) of the RPWD Act defines a
person with disability as a person with long term physical, mental,
intellectual or sensory impairment which, in interaction with
barriers, hinders their full and effective participation in society
equally with others. Therefore, a person – to be considered as a
person with disability – does not have to qualify any benchmark.
The principle that the rights and entitlements cannot be
constricted by adopting a benchmark as a condition precedent was
also upheld by this Court in Avni Prakash v. NTA (2023) 2 SCC
286.
40 of 48
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -41-
“47. When reasonable accommodation is denied to a person with
disability, it amounts to discrimination and violates the
fundamental rights of the aggrieved person and the preambular
virtue of fraternity along with justice, liberty and equality.
Persons with disability are not objects of pity or charity but an
integral part of our society and nation. The advancement of rights
for persons with disabilities is a national project along with
eradication of all forms of discrimination. A component of this
project is the inclusion of persons with disabilities in all pursuits
of life.”
(emphasis added)
36. Furthermore, in view of the constitutional philosophy, the
Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry Of Personnel, Public
Grievances and Pensions, Government of India has also issued the
notifications dated 15.08.2018 and 17.05.2022, respectively, thereby
granting relaxation in selection criteria for recruitment and promotion to
candidates with disabilities, with respect to employment with the central
government. Both the aforementioned notifications as well as the RPWD
Act were considered by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in
Munna Lal Yadav Vs. Department of Empowerment of Persons With
Disabilities and others, W.P.(C) 7197/2021. Speaking through Justice
Naveen Chawla, the following was opined: –
“45. Section 20 of the RPwD Act further mandates that the
Government has to ensure that no Government establishment shall
discriminate against any PwDs in any matter relating to
employment, and shall provide reasonable accommodation and
appropriate barrier free and conducive environment to employees41 of 48
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -42-with disability. It shall ensure that no promotion shall be denied to
a person merely on the ground of disability and no Government
establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank an employee
who acquires a disability during his or her service.
xxx xxx xxx
48. The “Reasonable Accommodation” is defined in Section 2(y)
of the RPwD Act, as under:
“(y) “reasonable accommodation” means 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.”
49. A reading of the above provisions together, therefore,
establishes that every Government Establishment is to ensure
that there inter alia should not be any restriction on an employee
on the basis of the disability, and necessary and appropriate
relaxations and adjustments, without imposing disproportionate
or undue burden on the employers, should be made, in
particular to ensure that the PwD enjoys or exercises rights at
par with others.
xxx xxx xxx
56. From the above, it would be evident that the RPwD Act
requires a relaxed standard to be adopted as far as the PwDs or
PwBDs are concerned. The Supreme Court has further held that
in case enough suitable candidates are not available after
selection, further relaxation can be done in assessing the
suitability of the candidate.
This is also the mandate of the Office Memorandums dated
15.01.2018 and 17.05.2022 issued by the DoPT, which prescribe
as under:
“11. RELAXATION OF STANDARD OF SUITABILITY:
11.1 If sufficient number of candidates with benchmark
disabilities candidates are not available on the basis of the
general standard to fill all the vacancies reserved for them.
candidates belonging to this category may be selected on
relaxed standard to fill up the remaining vacancies reserved
42 of 48
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -43-
for them provided they are not found unfit for such post or
posts. However, this provision shall not be used to allow any
relaxation in the eligibility criteria laid down for the issuance
of certificate of disability.
11.2 Same relaxed standard should be applied for all the
candidates with Benchmark Disabilities whether they belong
to Unreserved/SC/ST/OBC. No further relaxation standards
will be considered or admissible in favour of any candidate
from a category whatsoever.”
Office Memorandum Dated 17.05.2022:
“8. RELAXATION OF STANDARD OF SUITABILITY:
8.1. If sufficient number of PwBD candidates with benchmark
disabilities are not available on the basis of the prescribed
standard to fill the vacancies (in case of promotion through
Limited Departmental Competitive
Examination/Departmental Examination, etc.) reserved for
them, candidates belonging to this category may be selected
on relaxed standard to fill up the remaining vacancies
reserved for them, provided they are not found unfit for such
post or posts. However, this provision shall not be used to
allow any relaxation in eligibility criteria laid down for the
issuance of certificate of benchmark disability.
8.2 The same relaxed standard should be applied for all the
PwBD candidates with benchmark disabilities, irrespective of
whether they belong to the Unreserved/ SC/ ST/ OBC
category. No further relaxation of standards will be
considered or admissible in favour of any candidate for any
category whatsoever.”
37. Moreover, learned counsel for the respondents, respectively,
have relied upon the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court
in Sachin Kumar‘s case (supra) to submit that the qualifying marks for
the respective Subject Knowledge Tests, could not be reduced below
43 of 48
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -44-
35%. The emphasis therein was placed on the condition that standards
may be relaxed for persons with disabilities if the candidate is otherwise
qualified for the post, which can only be determined by the employer-
State. It was also highlighted that no enabling statute or policy was
brought to the fore that would allow the Commission to reduce the
minimum qualifying marks. Additionally, it was observed that
concessions cannot be granted at every stage, thereby compromising
administrative efficiency. However, it appears that Division Bench was
not apprised of the notifications issued by the Government of India
providing relaxation in selection criteria for persons with disabilities and
the discussion of ‘reasonable accommodation’ in the context of Sections
2(y), 3(5) and other provisions of RPWD Act.
38. In the cases at hand, no relaxations were provided at any stage
of the selection process to persons with disabilities. The grievance is not
directed at the adequacy or fairness of the relaxation granted to the
petitioners, but at the total denial of any relaxation, which is ex facie
contrary to the constitutional guarantees and the mandate of RPWD Act.
Furthermore, specific instructions were issued by the employer-State as
well as Union of India advocating for reasonable accommodations to be
provided by granting relaxations in selection criteria while recruiting the
persons with disabilities. However, without providing any explanation for
44 of 48
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -45-
it, the instructions have been arbitrarily superseded. Rather, by selectively
reading the same, provisional appointment letters were issued to two
persons from amongst the able-bodied candidates, against the posts
reserved for persons with disabilities. It is a clear case of overreach when
the matter is sub judice before this Court.
CONCLUSION
39. In view of the aforementioned discussion, the question framed
above is answered in the following terms: –
“Implementing relaxation in selection standards for persons
with disabilities in order to provide them reasonable
accommodations, in terms of Sections 2(y) & 3(5) of the
RPWD Act, does not violate Articles 14 & 16 of the
Constitution of India. If the selection process carried out on
strict equal terms in a mechanical manner, the cause of
substantive equality would fail. Thus, providing differential
treatment to the persons with disabilities treatment to
remove disadvantage does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution. The State bears the responsibility to
remove barriers that obstruct genuine opportunities for
persons with disabilities and such relaxation ensures that
equality becomes real, meaningful and transformative
45 of 48
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -46-rather than merely formal and illusory. As such, the
relaxation in selection criteria for persons with disabilities is
not a concession but a constitutional obligation to achieve
substantive equality in furtherance of Article 14, 16, 21 of
the Constitution and the statutory framework of the RPWD
Act.”
40. Accordingly, all the aforementioned petitions are allowed in
the following terms: –
(i) The Chief Secretary to the Government of Haryana is directed
to form a Committee to fix the extent of relaxation in
selection criteria that can be provided to candidates with
disabilities, in the light of the notifications dated 15.08.2018
and 17.05.2022 issued by the Department of Personnel and
Training, Government of India and the judgments of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in In re: Recruitment of Visually
Imparied in Judicial Services‘s case (supra), Vikash
Kumar‘s case (supra) and Om Rathod‘s case (supra). The
Committee shall be constituted within 02 weeks from the date
of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Further, the
Committee is directed to finalize the relaxed norms within a
period of 04 weeks of its constitution and communicate their
46 of 48
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -47-conclusion to the Chief Secretary to the Government of
Haryana.
(ii) Further, the report of the Committee shall be sent to the
respondent-Commission within a period of 02 weeks. Upon
receiving the recommendation of the Committee regarding
relaxation in selection criteria for candidates with disabilities,
the respondent-Commission is directed to reconsider the case
of the petitioner(s) and whether they breach the threshold of
the relaxed norms. In case they are found successful on the
relaxed norms, they be recommended for appointment to the
respondent-HSPCB within a period of 02 weeks from the date
of receipt of the report of the Committee.
(iii) The respective Chief Secretaries to the Governments of
Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh are directed to
formulate clear and comprehensive instructions regarding
grant of relaxations in selection criteria to realize the mandate
of the RPWD Act, in terms of the constitutional philosophy.
The respective Chief Secretaries shall ensure that the relaxed
norms in selection criteria are implemented in all future
recruitment processes carried out within their jurisdiction.
47 of 48
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::
CWP-34752, 37099 & 37156-2025 -48-
(iv) The Chief Secretaries to the Governments of Punjab, Haryana
and U.T. Chandigarh are also directed to file a compliance
report by way of affidavit of a responsible officer, within 03
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order.
(v) A copy of this order be supplied to the respective learned
State counsels for the State of Haryana and Punjab as well as
learned Senior Standing counsel for the Union Territory of
Chandigarh for information and compliance.
41. The pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall be
disposed of.
42. Photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected
cases.
[ HARPREET SINGH BRAR ]
27.02.2026 JUDGE
vishnu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
48 of 48
::: Downloaded on - 04-03-2026 00:08:42 :::