Expiry Of Selection List Cannot Defeat Appointment Of Disabled Candidate; Madhya Pradesh High Court Directs State To Appoint Teacher With 40% Locomotor Disability
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Ashish Shroti has directed the State Government to appoint the petitioner, certified as having 40% permanent locomotor disability, to the teaching post for which he was selected and to issue the appointment order within 60 days. The Court found that his appointment was withheld because of the procedure adopted by the authorities for disability verification and held that refusing appointment merely because the selection list had expired during this process would be unreasonable. The dispute concerned a provisionally selected disabled candidate and the State authorities, and the Court concluded that, since the delay was not attributable to the petitioner, the State is required to give effect to his selection.
The petitioner approached the Court seeking a direction permitting him to join service pursuant to an order dated 16.10.2024 and for release of salary with interest. He is certified to be suffering from 40% permanent locomotor disability and had participated in the Uchch Madhyamik Shikshak Recruitment Examination-2023, after which a provisional selection order was issued posting him at a Government Higher Secondary School. The selection was subject to verification of disability by the District/Divisional Medical Board. His documents were verified on 21.06.2024. The District Education Officer thereafter wrote to the Hospital on 21.10.2024 requesting constitution of a Medical Board, and the petitioner appeared for medical examination on 26.11.2024. A report dated 27.01.2025 certified 40% disability but lacked clarity on its permanent nature, leading to further correspondence.
The District Medical Board at Bhind certified his disability as permanent on 10.06.2025, and the information was forwarded on 07.07.2025. Additional verification was again sought from the Hospital, and the final report confirming permanent disability was forwarded on 01.09.2025. Meanwhile, the validity of the select list, extended until 20.08.2025, expired. The respondents argued that no appointment could be issued thereafter, whereas the petitioner contended that the delay was entirely administrative.
The Court recorded that the petitioner had already submitted his disability certificate and had appeared whenever called for verification. It stated that “even though, respondents' counsel argued that the petitioner himself delayed his medical examination, however, there is no material to this effect and even no averment in this regard has been made in the return.” It further recorded that “the petitioner was medically examined by the Board at Hospital on 26.11.2024” and that although the report was forwarded, the absence of specification regarding permanence prompted repeated enquiries. The Court noted that the District Medical Board had certified the disability to be 40% permanent on 10.06.2025, yet “still, the respondents did not take steps for petitioner’s appointment and insisted for the report by the Hospital.” The Court recorded that the delay occurred because “the Hospital ultimately furnished the report on 01.09.2025 but by this time, the validity of select list expired.” It stated that “it is thus evident that there was no delay on the part of the petitioner. The delay occurred because of the procedure adopted by the respondents for verification of petitioner's disability.”
The Court discussed the legal position by referring to the Supreme Court’s observations in Asha Kaul, including the passages: “mere inclusion in the select list does not confer upon the candidates included therein an indefeasible right to appointment” and “the State has no licence of acting in an arbitrary manner.” It also recorded the extract stating that “the whole exercise cannot be reduced to a farce… the Government cannot quietly and without good and valid reasons nullify the whole exercise.”
Applying these principles, the Court stated that “the petitioner had made him available for verification of his disability whenever asked for” and that “rejecting his candidature only because the select list has expired during the process, would be unreasonable for the petitioner.” The Court recorded that “since there is no delay on the part of the petitioner, merely because the validity of the select list has expired… he cannot be denied appointment on the post.”
The Court directed that “since, the petitioner has already been certified to be suffering from 40% permanent locomotor disability and is thus eligible for appointment, the respondents are directed to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner within a period of 60 days from the date of submission of certified copy of this order.” “The petition is allowed and disposed off.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Prashant Singh Kaurav, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Sohit Mishra, GA for the State
Case Title: Sonu Singh Narwariya v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 38868 of 2025
Bench: Justice Ashish Shroti
