Safiya Malik

The High Court of Patna, Single Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri disposed of a batch of writ petitions concerning selection to Junior Engineer posts, holding that recruitment to vacancies reserved for persons with disabilities must follow the statutory mechanism in Section 34(2) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and that executive resolutions or recruitment notifications inconsistent with the Act cannot confer any enforceable entitlement on candidates. The petitions arose from recruitment initiated by the Bihar Technical Service Commission for 6,379 Junior Engineer posts under Advertisement No. 1 of 2019, raising objections about horizontal PwD reservation and the treatment of unfilled PwD category vacancies during selection.

The petitioners, diploma holders in Civil Engineering and belonging to various categories of persons with disabilities, challenged the final merit list published on 20 December 2024. They sought quashing of the merit list and enforcement of 4% horizontal reservation under Resolution No. 13062 dated 12 October 2017.

Also Read: Section 372 CrPC | Victim Lacks Standalone Right To Appeal For Sentence Enhancement: Patna High Court

The dispute centered on the manner of filling unfilled vacancies within sub-categories of persons with disabilities and the applicability of Resolution No. 962 dated 22 January 2021. The petitioners contended that the 2021 resolution altered the procedure during the ongoing recruitment process and permitted carry forward of vacancies to the unreserved category. The respondents maintained that the recruitment was governed by Section 34(2) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and that the 2021 resolution clarified the statutory scheme.

The Court recorded at the outset, “All the above writ petitions raise the same and identical issue in the matter of selection to the post of Junior Engineer, so far as it relates to filling up of vacancies by way of horizontal reservation for handicapped candidates and relaxation in fitness criteria if sufficient number of candidates from this category are not available.”

On the statutory framework, the Court stated, “The right of persons with benchmark disabilities in matters of public employment is governed by the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which is a Central legislation enacted by Parliament.” It further observed, “Sub-section (2) of Section 34 lays down the manner in which vacancies reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities are to be dealt with in the course of recruitment.”

Examining the 2017 Resolution, the Court observed, “On a plain reading of the Resolution, dated 12.10.2017 and upon comparison with the statutory scheme under Section 34(2), it appears that the said Resolution does not strictly adhere to the manner of recruitment contemplated under the Act of 2016.” The Court added, “Since the statute occupies the field, any executive instruction or resolution must conform strictly to the statutory provisions and cannot operate in deviation thereof.”

Referring to limits of executive power, the Court recorded, “Executive instructions or resolutions must, therefore, operate strictly within the statutory framework and cannot travel beyond it.” It further stated, “It is well settled that executive instructions cannot override statutory provisions and must yield to the parent enactment.”

On the effect of non-conformity, the Court observed, “Once the foundational resolution itself is found not to be in strict conformity with the statutory mandate under Section 34(2), the entire recruitment process undertaken on the basis of such framework becomes legally vulnerable.” It added, “In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not expected to assume the role of a recruiting authority or to redesign the selection mechanism.”

The Court further stated, “It is, thus, evident that where the statutory foundation of the recruitment process itself is found to be inconsistent with the governing law, no enforceable right accrues in favour of any candidate seeking appointment pursuant to such process.”

Also Read: High Court Must Independently Apply Its Mind While Scrutinising SC/ST Act Charges In Section 14A Appeals: Supreme Court

The Court recorded, “For the reasons stated above I do not find any merit in these batch of writ petitions. Therefore, the writ petitions, bearing C.W.J.C. Nos. 1373 of 2025, 877 of 2025, 4360 of 2025, 5463 of 2025 and 11177 of 2025, are hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Ms. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Advocate; Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate; Mr. Arya Achint, Advocate; Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Rishabh Kumar Maurya, Advocate; Mr. Krishna Kant Pandey, Advocate; Mr. Vikash Kukmar Shukla, Advocate; Mr. Shashi Ranjan Kumar.

For the Respondents: Mr. Pratik Kumar Sinha, AC to GA-5; Mr. Nikesh Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Praveen Tiwari, Advocate; Mr. Anwar Karim, AC to GP-10; Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, AAG-13; Mr. Abhinav Alak, AC to AAG-13; Mr. Vikash Kumar, SC-11; Mr. Standing Counsel (04).

Case Title: Rajeev Ranjan & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.

Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1373 of 2025 & connected matters

Bench: Justice Bibek Chaudhuri