Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Chhattisgarh Single Bench of Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas dismissed a writ petition seeking a direction to provide 2% reservation for visually impaired candidates in the subject of Commerce in the recruitment process for the post of Assistant Professor. The Court held that it could not issue a writ of mandamus to the State Government to alter identified posts for reservation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. It directed that the ongoing recruitment process could proceed and appointment orders be issued to eligible candidates previously deferred due to an interim stay.

The matter involved a visually impaired candidate who participated in the recruitment process conducted by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) for the post of Assistant Professor (Commerce) pursuant to an advertisement dated 23.01.2019. The advertisement was for a total of 1384 posts including 184 posts for Commerce. A corrigendum issued on 23.02.2019 amended the reservation details for physically handicapped candidates. The petitioner appeared for the written examination held in November 2020 and qualified for the interview stage but was not selected in the final list.

Also Read: Supreme Court Closes Contempt Proceedings With Strict Directives | Orders Afforestation, Environmental Fee On DDA For Delhi Ridge Tree Felling | Warns Against Recurrence

The petitioner challenged the selection process on the grounds that the recruitment notification failed to provide a 2% reservation for blind and low vision candidates in the Commerce subject, as mandated under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. He argued that the omission violated Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India and constituted arbitrary denial of his fundamental rights.

It was submitted that in a previous advertisement issued on 10.09.2014 for the same post, reservation had been granted to visually handicapped candidates in Commerce, which was not followed in the present notification. The petitioner asserted that despite earlier directions from the High Court in WPS No. 1137/2019 and compliance obligations following the Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind (2013) 10 SCC 772, the corrigendum failed to include the Commerce subject for visually impaired candidates.

CGPSC, appearing as respondent No. 1, contended that it functioned as an examining body and not as a rule-making or policy-defining authority. It clarified that all recruitment processes were undertaken in strict accordance with rules, circulars, and rosters issued by the State Government. CGPSC stated that identification of posts suitable for persons with disabilities was the prerogative of the appointing authority or State Government, and not within the Commission’s purview.

CGPSC further argued that the petitioner had participated in the selection process despite full knowledge of the absence of reservation for visually impaired candidates in the Commerce subject, and therefore could not challenge the process after the fact. It stated that altering the reservation at this stage would be discriminatory to other candidates who had relied on the existing terms of the advertisement.

The State of Chhattisgarh, appearing as respondent No. 2, maintained that the advertisement complied with Government circular dated 29.08.2018, which was based on the identification list issued by the Social Welfare Department. It was asserted that reservation for persons with disabilities was determined at the cadre level across subjects, not for individual disciplines.

The State also noted that pursuant to the High Court's directions in WPS No. 1137/2019, the reservation arrangements had been realigned in the corrigendum issued on 08.01.2021. The changes reflected reallocation across faculties of Arts, Science, and Commerce. It further stated that visually impaired candidates were not assigned reservation in the Commerce subject due to the nature of duties involved, which include numerical work and laboratory activities. The identification of suitable posts was carried out under Section 33 and Section 34 of the RPWD Act, 2016.

The State argued that the writ petition did not challenge the validity of post-identification under the Act, and that the petitioner could not invoke public interest grounds to seek generalized relief after participating in the process. It also stated that the 100-point roster system and reservation to other benchmark disabilities had been strictly adhered to as per the Government’s recruitment policy.

The Court began by delineating the legal framework under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. It referred specifically to Section 33, which mandates the appropriate Government to identify posts suitable for various benchmark disabilities, and Section 34, which requires a minimum of 4% reservation in cadre strength for persons with benchmark disabilities, including 1% each for blindness and low vision.

It was "quite vivid that for initiating the recruitment process in the State Service, the State Government will be the appropriate Government for identification of the posts for reservation and for providing reservation."

Quoting the State Government circular dated 27.09.2014 and the Social Welfare Department’s list dated 25.09.2014, the Court noted: "This Clause further provides that list issued by the Social Welfare Department... is not exhaustive and the head of the department has discretionary power to identify other posts... but the posts which have been identified... will not supersede the posts... already included."

The Court stated that: "The appointing authority deems fit to provide reservation for OA and OL category candidates only as they have to impart education and to work in the laboratory also or any other administrative work assigned to them..."

The judicial reasoning further recorded that: "The appointing authority being best judge to assess suitability of the candidates for its establishment or to run his administration... this Court normally should not direct employer to choose particular employee for particular assignment."

Discussing the nature of the duties in the Commerce faculty, the Court observed: "Commerce and science faculty not only require to impart oral lecture but also require lot of writing of numerals and figures... this difficulty likely to be faced by them has chosen not to provide reservation to the persons with VH."

Citing paragraph 38 of the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind, the High Court reiterated: "If a post is not suitable for one category of disability the same could be identified as suitable for another category... entitled to the benefits of reservation."

Regarding the permissibility of interchanging reservation categories, the Court noted: "The proviso to Section 34 of the Act of 2016 also empowered the appropriate Government to interchange the post within 5 categories with the prior approval of the appropriate Government."

The Court concluded that: "The State Government taking into consideration the difficulty likely to be faced by the VH candidate has already granted reservation for commerce faculty in OA and OL category. Thus, the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the Proviso Clause has been duly complied by the respondents."

Also Read: Wife Who Waived Maintenance During Mutual Divorce Can Still Claim It | Change In Circumstances Revives Statutory Right : Kerala High Court

In its final pronouncement, the Court stated: "This Court in view of bar contained in Section 34 of the Act cannot issue Writ of Mandamus to the respondent No. 2 to provide 2% reservation for commerce faculty to the VH candidate as they have already provided reservation to OA and OL for commerce subject."

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed as being devoid of merit. The interim relief previously granted was vacated. The Court directed: "The respondents are directed to issue appointment order within 60 days to a suitable candidate whose appointment has been deferred in view of the interim order passed by this Court."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Vijay K. Deshmukh, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate for CGPSC; Mr. Kishan Lal Sahu, Deputy Government Advocate for the State of Chhattisgarh

Case Title: Saroj Kshemanidhi v. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission & Anr.

Neutral Citation: 2025: CGHC:22600

Case Number: WPS No. 1329 of 2021

Bench: Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

[Read/Download order]