Bombay High Court Declines Relief for Appointment to Civil Services 2008 Based on Later Legislative Changes: “2016 Act Cannot Undo a Concluded Selection Process”

Share this article

Court’s Decision

The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking appointment to the Civil Services based on the petitioner’s 2008 examination performance, ruling that the petition was barred by res judicata and delay. The Court held that the 2016 Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, though progressive, “did not revive earlier concluded selection processes” and cannot be used to undo what was lawfully completed under the previous legislative regime. The Court stated, “no case is made out to grant the Petitioner any relief regarding the 2006-2008 selection process.”

Facts

The petitioner, suffering from Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD), participated in the Civil Services Examination (CSE) in 2008, securing 1110 out of 2300 marks. At the time, the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 only recognized three categories for reservation: blindness/low vision, hearing impairment, and locomotor disability. Consequently, mental illness was excluded from the disability reservation roster.

Since the petitioner was ineligible under the disability quota, he applied under the OBC category but was not selected. The last selected candidate in the disability category had scored only 991 marks, leading the petitioner to argue that, had mental illness been recognized, he would have secured a place in the civil services.

The petitioner previously challenged the 1995 Act’s provisions before the Delhi High Court in 2013. That challenge was dismissed by both the Single Judge and the Division Bench, although the latter acknowledged the petitioner’s grievance but advised legislative amendment instead of judicial interference. The 2016 Act subsequently expanded reservation categories to include mental illness.

The petitioner then made representations in 2018 and 2019 to be appointed based on the 2008 exam under the revised 2016 Act. These were rejected, prompting the filing of the present writ petition.

Issues

Whether the petitioner could seek retrospective appointment in the Civil Services from the 2008 examination based on the subsequently enacted 2016 Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.
Whether the selection process concluded in 2008 could be reopened or interfered with under the 2016 legislation.
Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s representations by authorities in 2018 and 2019 was legally sustainable.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner contended that his exclusion from the disability quota in the 2008 CSE was arbitrary and discriminatory since mental illness, although qualifying as a disability under the 1995 Act’s broader definition, was excluded in implementation. He argued that the 2016 Act rectified this injustice by explicitly including mental illness under the benchmark disabilities eligible for reservation.

He further relied on the Delhi High Court’s observations in the 2016 judgment and pointed to the report of an Expert Committee recommending inclusion of persons with mental disabilities in the Civil Services.

He sought:

Quashing of communications dated 05.07.2018 and 27.02.2019 rejecting his request;
Appointment to a Civil Services post based on his 2008 exam performance;
Direction to provide consequential benefits, including promotions and monetary compensation.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Union Government opposed the petition on the grounds of:

Delay and laches, stating that the selection process ended in 2008 and the petitioner’s claims were rejected earlier by the Delhi High Court.
Res judicata, pointing to the earlier Delhi High Court proceedings which had already adjudicated the core issues.
Impossibility of implementation, noting that no reserved posts for mental illness were available in 2008 and retrospective appointment would disrupt seniority and administrative structure.
No infirmity in the 2008 process, which complied with the then-applicable 1995 Act.

Analysis of the Law

The Court noted that under the 1995 Act, only certain disabilities were identified for reservation, excluding mental illness. This was legally upheld in the previous proceedings.

The 2016 Act (Sections 33 and 34) made transformative changes by recognizing new categories including mental illness, but this did not authorize retrospective alteration of previous selection processes.

The legislative framework does not support reopening or modifying past recruitment procedures concluded under the old regime. The new law cannot be applied retroactively to benefit one individual without causing systemic disruption.

Precedent Analysis

Bhavya Nain v. High Court of Delhi – The Delhi High Court dealt with a 2018 selection process where the petitioner was wrongfully excluded due to misclassification of her disability as temporary. Relief was granted because the selection was ongoing and the 2016 Act applied.
- Court’s Distinction: Inapplicable here as Bhavya Nain pertained to a live selection under the new Act, unlike the concluded 2008 process.
Union of India v. Yashwant – The Karnataka High Court granted relief to a candidate with multiple disabilities wrongly assessed as ineligible.
- Court’s Distinction: The petitioner there met the benchmark disability criteria and was wrongly excluded, unlike the present case where the legal framework at the relevant time did not provide for the reservation now sought.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court held that all grievances concerning the 2006-2008 selection were already considered and decided by the Delhi High Court. Thus, the matter was barred by res judicata.
It emphasized that “change in the legal position under the 2016 Act does not revive or revalidate selection processes already concluded.”
Any direction to appoint the petitioner retrospectively would result in administrative chaos, violating established recruitment norms and affecting others who might have similarly been excluded.
The Court appreciated the petitioner’s pursuit of reform but held that no legal relief could now be granted based on sympathy or hindsight.

Conclusion

The writ petition was dismissed. The Court discharged the Rule without any order as to costs, concluding:

“While we appreciate the petitioner’s zest and crusade, we find ourselves unable to grant him any relief. The 2016 Act does not undo or re-open a legally concluded selection process.”

Implications

The judgment reinforces the principle that legislative changes are prospective, and judicial decisions cannot override concluded selections, particularly when already adjudicated.
It underscores the limits of judicial sympathy when faced with binding precedent, statutory boundaries, and administrative practicalities.
The case exemplifies the importance of timely challenge and the doctrine of finality in administrative decisions.

Cases Referred and Their Relevance

Bhavya Nain v. High Court of Delhi – Relief granted under the 2016 Act for 2018 selection process. Distinguished for being prospective and not applicable to closed processes like CSE 2008.
Union of India v. Yashwant Kumar – Relief granted for incorrect disability assessment. Distinguished as the case involved misapplication, not legislative gaps.

Click here to download the judgment Download

Also Read: Bombay High Court Refuses to Interfere in Completed Tender Work but Orders Enquiry into Alleged Forgery in Tender—”Petitioner Has No Locus, but Serious Allegations Must Be Enquired Into”