Court’s Decision
The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by a visually impaired candidate seeking 2% reservation in the Commerce faculty under the 2019 Assistant Professor recruitment advertisement. The Court held that the employer is the best judge of the suitability of candidates for particular posts and refused to issue a writ of mandamus directing reservation for visually impaired candidates in Commerce, affirming the decision to reserve the posts only for OA (One Arm) and OL (One Leg) categories.
“This is a subjective matter of the appointing authority which cannot be found faulty or warrant interference by this Court in view of limited scope of power of interference.”
Facts
The petitioner, a visually impaired candidate, applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Commerce) pursuant to an advertisement dated 23.01.2019 by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC), which initially reserved posts for persons with disabilities but did not include blindness or low vision for Commerce. A corrigendum dated 23.02.2019 was later issued, but it continued to exclude reservation for visually impaired candidates in the Commerce faculty. The petitioner qualified the written exam and was called for an interview but was not selected. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Court seeking issuance of a corrigendum providing 2% reservation for blind and low-vision candidates in current as well as backlog vacancies.
Issues
- Whether the State Government is bound to provide 2% reservation for visually impaired candidates in Commerce faculty when reservation has already been provided to other disability categories in the same recruitment process?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that the non-inclusion of visually impaired candidates in the reserved category for Commerce violated Article 16(1) of the Constitution. He emphasized that in the previous 2014 advertisement, visually impaired candidates were granted reservation in Commerce. The petitioner argued that despite directions issued in earlier court orders dated 26.03.2019 and 24.04.2019, no reservation was granted for the blind and low-vision category in the revised advertisement.
To support his case, the petitioner relied on the following decisions:
- Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind, (2013) 10 SCC 772: Mandated 3% reservation for persons with disabilities.
- Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477: Referred for the principle of equality in reservation.
- Mahesh Gupta v. Yashawant Kumar Ahirwar, (2007) SC: Addressed reservation for persons with disabilities in public employment.
- Vijay K. Deshmukh v. State of Chhattisgarh, WP(PIL) No. 1470/2007: Concerned implementation of reservation.
- SMW(C) No.(s) 2 of 2024, Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services: Highlighted judicial directions for inclusive recruitment.
Respondent’s Arguments
The CGPSC argued that:
- It is merely a recruiting agency that acts as per the rules, circulars, and reservation rosters issued by the State Government.
- The petitioner willingly participated in the selection process, knowing that no reservation existed for his category, and cannot now challenge the advertisement midway.
- Identification of posts for reservation is the prerogative of the appointing authority, not the PSC.
- The recruitment was carried out in compliance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and prior court orders.
The State Government supported CGPSC’s position and emphasized:
- Posts identified for reservation were based on the 27.09.2014 circular and the Social Welfare Department’s list dated 25.09.2014.
- Posts requiring lab work and writing numerals (like in Commerce and Science) were identified as unsuitable for visually impaired persons.
- A 100-point roster was followed, and 7% reservation was granted across categories, including OA and OL for Commerce.
- The petitioner’s participation without objection estopped him from challenging the process after finalization.
Analysis of the Law
The Court closely examined Sections 33 and 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which mandate identification of posts for reservation and lay down that at least 4% of vacancies be reserved for benchmark disabilities.
The Court observed:
- The State Government is the “appropriate government” under Section 2(b) of the Act and is responsible for identifying posts and providing reservations.
- Circular dated 27.09.2014 and the accompanying Social Welfare Department list govern identification.
- Clause 11 of the circular mandates maintenance of a 100-point roster.
- The selection of OA and OL categories for Commerce faculty was based on the functional requirements of the job (lectures, numerals, lab work), and the decision not to include VH (Visually Handicapped) was a conscious one.
Precedent Analysis
The Court specifically addressed the National Federation of the Blind judgment, cited by the petitioner. It noted that:
“If a post is not suitable for one category of disability, the same could be identified as suitable for another category or categories of disabilities entitled to the benefits of reservation.”
Thus, the Court held that both the cited precedent and the proviso to Section 34 of the Act support the respondents’ decision.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the appointing authority is the best judge of functional suitability and that visually impaired candidates may face challenges in teaching Commerce, which requires writing numerals and lab work. Hence, reserving posts for OA and OL categories was a reasonable classification.
The Court refused to interfere under writ jurisdiction, reiterating that:
“This is a subjective matter of the appointing authority which cannot be found faulty or warrant interference by this Court…”
Conclusion
The writ petition was dismissed. The Court vacated the interim stay order and directed the respondents to proceed with issuing appointment orders within 60 days to the candidate whose appointment had been withheld due to the pending litigation.
Implications
The judgment reinforces the principle that identification of posts for reservation lies within the exclusive domain of the appointing authority. Courts will exercise restraint in directing reservation unless there is manifest arbitrariness. The decision also clarifies the extent of compliance required under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and affirms that reservation for one category of disability does not necessarily imply reservation for all categories in every discipline.
Also Read: Calcutta High Court Refuses to Quash Criminal Proceedings Against HPCL Dealers