Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul held that post-wise identification of vacancies reserved for persons with disabilities under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, is statutorily permissible and does not amount to illegal bifurcation of vacancies. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision dismissing a petition filed by visually impaired candidates who had sought appointments under the reserved quota in Indian Railways. The court further stated that there was no illegality in identifying certain posts as suitable only for persons with low vision and not for those who are completely blind. The petitioners were found to have participated in the selection process with full knowledge of post-wise suitability criteria as laid out in the recruitment notification and could not challenge the same after failing to secure appointments. The court dismissed the writ petitions while granting liberty to the petitioners to approach authorities afresh under a subsequent Railway circular.

The petitioners, who are 100% visually impaired, applied for recruitment to posts under the Western Railway through a selection process initiated via Central Employment Notice (CEN) 01/2019, dated 23 February 2019. A total of 10734 vacancies were notified by the Western Railway, out of which 171 were reserved for visually impaired (VI) candidates as per Section 34(1)(a) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 ("RPWD Act"). The candidates were required to have passed Class X or possess an ITI qualification and be between 18 and 33 years of age.

Also Read: Supreme Court Quashes Rape And Assault FIRs Based On Settlement | Says Continuation Of Proceedings Would Be Abuse Of Process | Complainant Married And Unwilling To Pursue Charges Under Section 376 IPC

According to Annexure A of the CEN, the notification identified specific posts as suitable either for candidates with low vision or for both blind and low vision candidates. The petitioners participated in the selection process, cleared the computer-based test, and were called for document verification and medical examination. However, they were not included in the final selection panels released on 23 March 2023, 27 April 2023, and 5 June 2023.

Their grievance was that although they secured marks above the cut-off, they were excluded from selection on the ground that they were completely blind, whereas the posts were identified as suitable only for candidates with low vision. They alleged that this amounted to an impermissible bifurcation of vacancies reserved under the RPWD Act, which treats blindness and low vision as a single category under Section 34(1)(a).

Aggrieved, the petitioners filed original applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the exclusion and the post-wise classification in Annexure A of the CEN. They relied on judicial precedents including the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind and the High Court of Delhi's judgement in National Federation of the Blind v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, contending that reservation under the RPWD Act is vacancy-based and not post-based.

In response, the respondents argued that there was no illegality in the identification of posts and that they were merely complying with statutory provisions and executive instructions. They stated that 171 posts were reserved for VI candidates in compliance with the RPWD Act and that Annexure A merely set out which posts were suitable for which sub-categories of disabilities. The identification exercise, they claimed, was not a subdivision or bifurcation but a necessary statutory step as envisaged under Section 33 of the RPWD Act.

They also raised preliminary objections, arguing that:

(i) The petitioners had not challenged the CEN or Annexure A before participating in the selection process.

(ii) They were aware of the suitability criteria when applying and thus were estopped from raising objections after the outcome.

(iii) The petitions were bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as candidates with low vision who had been selected were not impleaded.

The Tribunal dismissed the OAs on 16 July 2024, holding that there was no violation of Sections 33 or 34 of the RPWD Act. The Tribunal observed that the identification of specific posts as suitable or unsuitable for blind candidates was based on objective criteria and aligned with the statutory framework.

Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the High Court, reiterating their contentions and challenging the Tribunal's judgment.

The Court observed: "Clause 11.1 of the CEN clearly stated thus: 'The suitability or otherwise, of a post for PWBD has been indicated against each post, under the column ‘suitability for persons with benchmark disability’ with details of sub disability in post parameters table'."

The Bench noted that the petitioners had full knowledge of the identification matrix prior to participating in the selection process. It stated: "Candidates were put on notice well in advance, that certain posts, covered by the CEN, were suitable for being manned only by candidates with certain categories of disabilities."

Rejecting the allegation of illegal bifurcation, the Court stated: "Section 34 obligates the government to reserve 1% of the total number of vacancies to be filled for candidates with blindness and LV. As 171 vacancies, out of 10734, were reserved for VI candidates, the mandate of Section 34(1)(a) stood satisfied."

"Section 33(i) empowers the appropriate government to identify posts in the establishment which can be held by respective category of persons with benchmark disabilities in respect of the vacancies reserved... Identification is, statutorily, of posts, not of vacancies."

Addressing the issue of suitability, the Court stated: "The posts which, according to Annexure A to the CEN, were not suitable for being manned by blind candidates, are posts which involved handling of machinery or other such activities which a person who is completely blind would be unable to perform."

Regarding the reliance on the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities Office Memorandum dated 4 March 2015, the Court noted: "The said OM itself clarifies that the posts of Khalasi Helper in the Electrical, Mechanical and Engineering, Signal and Telecom Departments of the Railways were not suitable for blind candidates."

On whether the petitioners were denied appointment despite merit, the Court observed: "Against the posts which were identified, in Annexure A to the CEN, as suitable for candidates who were blind or were suffering from LV, the respondents did appoint both categories of candidates... No candidate inferior to the petitioners on merit was selected."

The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ravi Prakash Gupta stating: "Reservation under Section 33 of the Act is not dependent on identification... Identification of posts is for the purpose of making appointments, not for the purpose of making reservation."

Similarly, in National Federation of the Blind, the Court recorded: "The scope of identification comes into picture only at the time of appointment... It was held in Ravi Prakash Gupta that Section 32 is not a precondition for computation of reservation... rather Section 32 is the following effect of Section 33."

The Bench rejected the argument that the CEN violated the statutory scheme: "We have found that, even as per the OM dated 4 March 2015, the petitioners were not suitable for the posts against which they now seek appointment."

On the issue of estoppel, the Court recorded: "Candidates, having taken part in the selection process without any demur or protest, cannot challenge the same after having been declared unsuccessful. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time."

"Once the candidates were put on notice, vide Annexure A to the CEN, regarding the posts against which they would be eligible to compete, and participated without demur, they cannot challenge the legality of Annexure A, having failed to make the cut."

Also Read: Social Media Radicalisation Falls Within UAPA Section 18 | Delhi High Court Denies Bail Saying Prima Facie Case Made Out Against TRF-Linked Accused

"We do not propose to pronounce on this aspect on merits... However, keeping in mind the fact that the interests of VI candidates are involved, we do not desire to foreclose the petitioners from raising this issue."

"We reserve liberty with the petitioners, therefore, to address a representation to the respondents, seeking the benefit of the Circular dated 16 December 2024."

"In the event that, by extending the benefit of the said Circular, any of the petitioners could secure appointment, this judgment, accordingly, shall not act as an impediment in that regard."

The Court issued the following directions:

"We find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the Tribunal dismissing the petitioners’ OAs."

"Subject to the limited caveat in para 30.2 supra, the impugned judgment is, therefore, upheld in its entirety."

The present writ petitions are also, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. S.K. Rungta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Prashant Singh, Advocate

For the Respondents: Ms. Monika Arora, Central Government Standing Counsel with Mr. Subhrodeep Saha and Ms. Radhika Kurdukar, Advocates for UOI; Mr. Sandeep Tyagi, Senior Panel Counsel with Mr. Vedansh Anand, Government Pleader and Mr. Soumyadip Chakraborty, Advocate for UOI; Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Senior Panel Counsel with Mr. Ankur Yadav, Government Pleader for UOI; Ms. Iram Majid, CGSC with Mr. Mohd. Suboor and Mr. M. Seham Khan, Advocates for UOI

Case Title: Nand Lal Luhar and Ors v. Western Railway and Ors

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:5040-DB

Case Number: W.P.(C) 9994/2024 and connected matters

Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar, Justice Ajay Digpaul