Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Division Bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain disposed of a writ petition seeking retrospective application of reservations for persons with mental disabilities in Civil Services examinations conducted in 2008. The Court concluded that while the petitioner's grievance was partially justified, judicial redress was no longer tenable due to the finality of previous court judgements and legislative developments since then.

The Court recorded that the selection process for the civil services during 2006-2008 was legally valid under the prevailing statutory framework and had already been judicially scrutinized and upheld by the Delhi High Court. It noted that subsequent amendments brought in through the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which extended reservation benefits to individuals suffering from mental illness, could not be retroactively applied to past selection processes. Consequently, the Court refused to interfere with prior selection outcomes or grant the reliefs sought, including appointment and consequential benefits based on marks secured in the 2008 examination.

Also Read: Preventive Detention Must Not Circumvent Ordinary Criminal Law | Order Set Aside As State Failed To Show Threat To Public Order : Supreme Court

The petition was therefore dismissed, with the Court stating that while the petitioner's efforts and persistence were acknowledged, legal relief in this context was not feasible under the law as it stands today.

The petitioner, aged 40 and employed in public service, approached the Bombay High Court under Writ Petition No. 8123 of 2019, invoking constitutional and statutory provisions relating to disability rights. He contended that he suffered from obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), categorized as a mental disability under Section 2(s) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the "2016 Act").

Between 2006 and 2008, the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) conducted examinations to appoint candidates to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), Indian Police Service (IPS), and other allied services. The petitioner participated in the 2008 Civil Services Examination and secured 1110 out of 2300 marks. However, he was not selected under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category, which he had applied under due to the unavailability of reservation for mental disabilities at that time.

According to the petitioner, the last selected candidate under the disability reservation category in 2008 had secured only 991 marks. He contended that had mental illness been recognized as a qualifying disability, he would have been selected based on his score. The petitioner argued that Sections 32 and 33 of the then-applicable Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ("1995 Act") provided only 3% reservation and restricted eligibility to persons suffering from blindness, low vision, hearing impairment, locomotor disability, or cerebral palsy. Consequently, no reservation had been extended to individuals with mental illnesses.

The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Section 33 of the 1995 Act before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition No. 447 of 2013. The Single Judge dismissed the petition on 28 January 2013. A subsequent appeal before the Division Bench in LPA No. 222 of 2013 was disposed of in 2017 without granting relief, although the Division Bench observed that the petitioner's grievance was justified to an extent and advised the government to consider legislative amendments.

Following the enactment of the 2016 Act, which specifically included mental illness under Section 34(1)(d) among the categories eligible for reservation in government posts, the petitioner sought retrospective benefit. He made representations in 2018 and 2019, seeking appointment to the Civil Services based on his 2008 exam score. These representations were rejected by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment and the UPSC, citing the conclusion of the 2006-2008 selection cycle and the prospective nature of the 2016 Act.

Aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on 01 April 2019. He sought various reliefs including:

• Quashing of communications dated 05.07.2018 and 27.02.2019 rejecting his representations.
• Appointment to a Civil Services post based on his 2008 exam score.
• Directions for identification of posts under Section 34(1)(d) of the 2016 Act.
• Grant of consequential benefits including deemed date of appointment and promotions.

The petition was contested by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, represented by Ms. Anamika Malhotra, who raised preliminary objections on grounds of delay, laches, and res judicata. She pointed out that the petitioner's previous challenge had already been adjudicated by the Delhi High Court, and therefore could not be re-agitated.

She also argued that during the 2006-2008 selection process, mental illness was not a recognized category for reservation under the 1995 Act, and therefore no legal infirmity existed in excluding the petitioner from disability-based reservation during that time.

"The Petitioner’s grievance about the exclusion of those suffering from mental illness, when it came to the reservation of posts in government service, was legislatively redressed. As noted above, Section 34(1)(d) clearly refers to persons suffering from autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness."

The Court took note of the legislative progression from the 1995 Act to the 2016 Act, observing: "The remedy lies in amending the law. The Division Bench therefore commended the Respondents to take some action towards a proper evaluation of the matter in the light of the observations made in paragraph Nos. 28 to 30 of the Judgment and order dated 27 October 2016."

Regarding the relief sought in the current petition, the Court recorded: "Accordingly, there was no question of delving into the issues of the Expert Committee's constitution or its recommendations. Mr Kadam submitted that the Expert Committee report had indeed recommended reservations in the Civil Services for persons with mental disabilities."

Addressing the petitioner's main plea for retrospective relief, the Court stated: "Based upon such intervention, it was not open for the Petitioner to institute the present Petition and again attempt to seek relief regarding the 2006-2008 selections through this Court. The principle of res judicata or constructive res judicata would surely apply to such a situation."

The Court also noted the administrative impracticalities: "Firstly, no posts were advertised for persons with mental illness. Secondly, at this point in time, to appoint any person against the selection process of 2006-2008 would give rise to several complications regarding seniority, induction, etc."

Responding to the petitioner’s reliance on two judicial precedents, the Court distinguished the facts: "There was no question of granting any benefit for the 2006-2008 selection process or some past concluded selection processes based upon the changed legal position in 2016."

"In Bhavya Nain (supra), the Court determined that there was nothing temporary about the Petitioner’s disability and granted him relief for the selection process of 2018."

Also Read: National Security Must Not Be Compromised | Delhi High Court Refuses Bail To PFI Member Accused Under UAPA | Evidence Suggests Conspiracy To Undermine India’s Unity

"Similarly, the decision in the case of Yashwant Kumar (supra) is also of no benefit to the Petitioner... the facts in Yashwant Kumar (supra) are also not comparable to the facts of the present case."

The Court expressed appreciation for the petitioner's perseverance: "The Petitioner’s zest in pursuing this matter before the Delhi High Court and this Court is to be appreciated."

The Court concluded: "Accordingly, we find ourselves unable to grant the Petitioner any relief regarding the 2006-2008 selection process in this Petition."

"No case is, therefore, made out to interfere with the impugned communications."

"The Rule is discharged, and the Petition is disposed of without a costs order."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr Sanjeev Kadam, Senior Advocate with Mr Prashant Raul, Ms Varsha Thorat, Mr Suraj Mhadgut, Mr Harsh Khot, i/b Ms Veera Shinde

For the Respondents: Ms Anamika Malhotra with Mr Mainak Adhikary

Case Title: Vishwas Haridas Jadhavar v. Union of India & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-AS:23528-DB

Case Number: Writ Petition No. 8123 of 2019

Bench: Justice M.S. Sonak, Justice Jitendra Jain

[Read/Download order]