Failed To Ensure Reasonable Accommodation | J&K High Court Quashes AAI’s Rejection Of Visually Impaired Law Graduate’s Candidature For Junior Executive Post
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Single Bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani allowed a writ petition challenging the disqualification of a visually impaired candidate from a public recruitment process. The Court quashed the impugned disqualification order dated 13.12.2024 and directed the respondents to revisit and reconsider the petitioner’s case strictly in accordance with Section 3(5) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vikash Kumar v. UPSC & Ors. The respondents were instructed to complete this exercise within six weeks and communicate the outcome within two weeks thereafter.
The petitioner, a woman certified to have 100% permanent visual disability, filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking several reliefs, including the quashing of a communication disqualifying her from consideration for recruitment to the post of Junior Executive (Law). The petition also sought the quashing of Advertisement No. 03/2023 dated 19.08.2023.
According to the pleadings, the petitioner possessed academic qualifications of B.A.LL.B from the University of Jammu (2021) and LL.M from the University of Punjab (2022), and was serving as a Law Professor at MIET Law College, Jammu. She applied under the category of persons with benchmark disabilities, specifically under "Blindness" and "Low Vision," for one of 18 advertised posts of Junior Executive (Law), three of which were reserved under this category.
The petitioner appeared for the Computer-Based Test conducted on 21.10.2023 and was declared successful through notification dated 15.12.2023. During subsequent document verification, she was asked to submit a benchmark disability certificate. Upon submission of the required undertaking and certificate, the authenticity was disputed by the respondents, prompting her to submit another certificate endorsed by a government hospital.
When the final selection results were announced on 24.05.2024, the petitioner’s result was withheld. She was informed via email that her result was under review pending confirmation of her ability to meet the functional requirements for the post. Despite an interim order by the Court in a related writ petition, WP(C) No. 2326/2024, directing the respondents not to issue further advertisements or appointments, she received communication that her candidature was found unsuitable for lacking the requisite capabilities of “seeing, reading, and writing.”
The petitioner challenged the subsequent cancellation of her candidature through a communication dated 13.12.2024 and sought judicial relief. The respondents, in their objections, maintained that her disability certificate did not align with the functional requirements specified in the advertisement. While the petitioner initially marked her application under the “Blindness” category, the disability certificate indicated “Low Vision.” She later submitted an affidavit clarifying this discrepancy, stating the entry was inadvertent.
The petitioner was then subjected to a reassessment of her disability. The revised medical evaluation again described her disability as “Blindness,” leading to cancellation on grounds of inconsistency. Respondents stated that although both “Blindness” and “Low Vision” are covered under Category A of benchmark disabilities, the petitioner was declared ineligible due to her inability to meet essential functions such as seeing, reading, and writing.
They further cited a notification by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment dated 14.03.2022, which mandates reassessment and verification of disability certificates by the relevant authorities to ensure suitability for posts. A Review Committee conducted another reassessment on 21.10.2024, concluding that the petitioner lacked the functional capacity required for the role, which ultimately led to cancellation of her candidature.
The Court recorded the applicable statutory definitions, stating: “Section 2(r) of the Act provides that a ‘person with benchmark disability’ is a person with at least forty percent of a specified disability…as certified by the certifying authority.” It further quoted Section 2(s) as: “a ‘person with disability’ is a person with long-term physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory impairment which, in interaction with barriers, hinders his full and effective participation in society.”
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Vikash Kumar v. UPSC & Ors., the Court cited: “The concept of a benchmark disability under Section 2(r) cannot be conflated with the notion of disability under Section 2(s).” It added: “Worse still, to deny the rights and entitlements recognised for persons with disabilities on the ground that they do not fulfil a benchmark disability would be plainly ultra vires the 2016 RPwD Act.”
The Court further observed the relevance of Section 3(5) of the Act, which mandates: “The appropriate Government shall take necessary steps to ensure reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities.” On this, the Supreme Court in Vikash Kumar held: “The principle of reasonable accommodation captures the positive obligation of the State and private parties to provide additional support to persons with disabilities to facilitate their full and effective participation in society.”
Reverting to the facts of the case, the Court stated: “The respondents have overlooked the provisions of Section 3(5) and the above position of law laid down by the Apex Court.” It recorded that: “While advertising the post in question, [the respondents] notified the category of ‘blind’ as well as ‘low vision’ candidates eligible for the post.”
The Court held that: “Since the respondents have failed to advert to the aforesaid provisions of Section 3(5)… and cancelled the candidature of the petitioner after having been entertained against the post in question and subjecting her to the process of selection thereof, the respondents cannot, but said to have acted arbitrarily, unreasonably, unfairly and in breach and violation of the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment of Vikash Kumar.”
The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned communication dated 13.12.2024.
It directed the respondents to revisit and reconsider the case of the petitioner in light of the provisions of Section 3(5) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, as well as the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Vikash Kumar v. UPSC & Ors.
The Court ordered that this exercise be commenced and completed within a period of six weeks from the date of the judgment, with the decision to be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter.
In view of the above, WP(C) No. 2326/2024 was also disposed of. A copy of the judgment was directed to be placed on the record file of both petitions. The matter stood disposed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Nikhil Padha, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Inderjeet Gupta, Advocate
Case Title: Shivani Misri v. Union of India & Anr.
Case Number: WP(C) No. 596/2025 c/w WP(C) No. 2326/2024
Bench: Justice Javed Iqbal Wani
[Read/Download order]
