Eligibility Cannot Be Decided Solely By Medical Labels | Karnataka High Court Orders Appointment Of Disabled Candidate Based On Functional Capacity
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Karnataka Division Bench of Chief Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice K.V. Aravind allowed a writ appeal challenging the rejection of a disabled candidate’s claim for appointment to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer. The Court held that where no other eligible candidate under the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) category is available, and the appellant is functionally suitable, relaxation in eligibility conditions may be considered. It set aside the impugned judgment of the Single Judge and directed the respondents to appoint the appellant and grant notional seniority, completing the process within eight weeks.
The appellant, aged 37, is currently employed as an Assistant with the Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Ltd. under the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL). He was appointed under the PwD quota pursuant to a 2015 notification. The appellant suffers from locomotor disability affecting both legs and both arms and has a disability percentage of 75%.
On 08.09.2016, KPTCL issued a fresh employment notification inviting applications for various posts, including Assistant Accounts Officer, under the PwD category. The appellant submitted his application for direct recruitment under this notification. Though his name was listed for examination, it did not appear in the provisional selection list. The appellant learned that no candidate was selected under the PwD category for the post due to the alleged non-availability of eligible candidates.
The appellant filed a writ petition seeking a direction to include his name under the General Merit PwD quota in the final selection list. The petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 27.09.2024, who held that the appellant’s disability type rendered him ineligible under the 2016 notification. The Court also held that the appellant could not challenge the eligibility conditions after participating in the selection process.
In the appeal, the appellant contended that he was already appointed to the post of Assistant with the same disability and that the functional duties of Assistant and Assistant Accounts Officer were nearly identical. It was argued that if he was eligible for promotion to the latter post, denying him eligibility for direct recruitment was arbitrary. He placed reliance on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services (2025 SCC OnLine SC 481), where the Court held that relaxation of criteria may be permitted in the absence of other eligible candidates within the PwD category.
The respondents argued that under the 2016 notification, eligibility was limited to candidates with a locomotor disability affecting only one leg or one arm. Since the appellant's disability affected both legs and both arms, he did not meet the specified criteria. They maintained that eligibility conditions are binding and cannot be altered post-publication of the notification.
The Court recorded that “the appellant, despite suffering from disability affecting both arms, has already been appointed to the post of Assistant.” It stated: “While promoting the appellant to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer, no additional eligibility criteria have been prescribed.” It further noted that “when the appellant is deemed eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer, it is difficult to accept that he is not eligible for direct recruitment to the same post.”
In assessing the applicability of eligibility conditions, the Court held: “What requires consideration, in this context, is the functional assessment.” It observed: “Annexure-A, the Disability Certificate, clearly records that the appellant can perform normal work with both hands, albeit subject to certain restrictions.”
The Court addressed the submission that the functional duties of Assistant and Assistant Accounts Officer are nearly identical, stating that: “The said contention merits consideration.” It added that the respondents were unable to dispute the appellant’s ability to discharge the functions required of the post.
The Court considered the Supreme Court’s rights-based interpretation in Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services, stating: “The assessment of a person's suitability, capacity and capability is not to be tested and measured by medical or clinical assessment... but must be assessed after providing reasonable accommodation and an enabling atmosphere.”
It recorded the following from the apex judgment: “Any decision which is innocent to the principle of reasonable accommodation would amount to disability-based discrimination and is also in deep tension with the ideal of inclusive equality.”
The Bench further cited: “Relaxation can be done in assessing suitability of candidates when enough PwD are not available after selection in their respective category.”
Applying these principles, the Court concluded: “It becomes evident that, while assessing the capacity and capability of a candidate, undue emphasis cannot be placed on medical or clinical issues alone.” It held that: “If there is no other eligible candidate under the PwD quota available in the respective category, the eligibility criteria may be relaxed.”
Regarding the Single Judge’s view, the Division Bench held: “The Learned Single Judge proceeded to consider the case of the appellant as though he were challenging the eligibility conditions prescribed in the notification.” It clarified: “The appellant has not challenged the eligibility conditions or the selection process. What the appellant has pleaded is his eligibility for the post of Assistant Accounts Officer.”
The Court rejected the view that promotion and direct recruitment are not analogous, observing: “The post of Assistant Accounts Officer can be filled by promotion, a fact which is not disputed by the respondents.”
It concluded that: “The order of learned Single Judge suffers from infirmities and requires interference of this Court.”
The Court allowed the writ appeal and set aside the judgment and order dated 27.09.2024 passed in Writ Petition No. 5666 of 2018.
It held that the appellant is eligible for the post of Assistant Accounts Officer under the reservation for persons with disabilities.
The Court directed the respondents to appoint the appellant to the said post and granted him notional seniority as per the final list published pursuant to the notification dated 08.09.2016.
It further ordered that the process of including the appellant’s name in the final selection list, issuing the order of appointment, and determining the seniority list shall be completed within eight weeks from the date of the order.
In view of the disposal of the main appeal, the Court recorded that any pending interlocutory application stood disposed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri Dhananjay V. Joshi, Senior Advocate, with Sri Swaroop S., Advocate
For the Respondents: Smt. Rakshitha D.J., Advocate for R1; Sri Likith R. Prakash, Advocate for R2
Case Title: Anil Kumar S.B. v. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited & Anr.
Case Number: Writ Appeal No. 1673 of 2024
Bench: Justice N.V. Anjaria, Chief Justice; Justice K.V. Aravind
[Read/Download order]
