Sanchayita Lahkar

The Rajasthan High Court has directed the state government and municipal authorities to appoint a candidate with a 90% hearing disability to the post of Safai Karamchari (sanitation worker) after he was wrongly excluded from the Physically Disabled Persons (PwD) category during the selection process. The Single Bench of Justice Arun Monga observed that the authorities had admitted their mistake in miscategorizing the petitioner under the Scheduled Caste (SC) category instead of PwD, leading to his exclusion from the draw of lots for disabled candidates. The court ordered that upon verification of his disability certificate and other relevant documents, he should be appointed within 30 days with seniority and notional benefits but without financial arrears.

The court, while acknowledging that the petitioner did not participate in the lottery-based selection due to administrative errors, noted that "such are the vagaries of litigation that sometimes result in fortuitous benefits." It emphasized the need for a “humanitarian outlook” in cases involving persons with disabilities, especially when there were more reserved vacancies than eligible PwD candidates.

Also Read: Supreme Court Questions Odisha’s Handling of Land Dispute Cases, Cites “Inordinate Delay” and “Lack of Diligence”

The case stemmed from a recruitment process initiated through Advertisement No. 1/2018 for the appointment of Safai Karamcharis in 184 municipalities across Rajasthan. The advertisement, issued on April 13, 2018, stipulated that applicants must be bona fide residents of Rajasthan with one year of experience. The selection was to be conducted through a lottery system under the Rajasthan Nagar Palika (Safai Karamchari Seva) Niyam, 2012, with reservations provided for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Other Backward Classes (OBC), Persons with Disabilities (PwD), women, widows, and divorced women.

The petitioner, a resident of Udaipur, applied under both the PwD category due to his 90% hearing impairment and under the SC category. However, a clerical error resulted in his name being recorded only under the SC category in the official checklist. Consequently, he was not considered under the PwD category, where 35 posts were reserved but only 10 applications were received. The petitioner was not selected in the SC lottery.

Upon realizing the error, the petitioner submitted a representation to the municipal authorities. Respondent No. 3 (Nagar Nigam Udaipur) acknowledged the mistake and wrote to Respondent No. 2 (Director cum Joint Secretary, Local Self-Government Department) on August 27, 2020, and again on October 13, 2020, requesting corrective action.

In response, the Local Self-Government Department sought clarifications, including whether the petitioner had applied under the PwD category, whether he had submitted a valid disability certificate, and which official was responsible for the misclassification. On November 23, 2020, Nagar Nigam Udaipur confirmed that the petitioner had applied as a PwD candidate but had been wrongly classified due to a “software error.” An inquiry committee was formed to investigate the matter.

Despite repeated correspondence, no corrective action was taken, and the petitioner was not considered for appointment. A legal notice was sent to the respondents on April 7, 2021, but no response was received, leading to the filing of the present writ petition.

The High Court noted that the respondents had admitted their mistake on oath and had acknowledged that the petitioner had applied under the PwD category but was erroneously treated only as an SC candidate. It recorded:

"From the reply, it is clear that the respondents have, on oath, admitted that, due to a mistake on their part, the candidature of the petitioner could not be considered in the Physically Handicapped category."

The court cited Sections 32 and 33 of the Disabilities Act, 1995, which mandate that appropriate governments identify posts to be reserved for persons with disabilities and ensure a minimum percentage of such reservations. The judgment quoted the provisions:

"Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less than three per cent for persons or class of persons with disability, of which one per cent each shall be reserved for persons suffering from— (i) blindness or low vision; (ii) hearing impairment; (iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy, in the posts identified for each disability."

The court observed that the petitioner’s disability was undisputed, and the record demonstrated that the number of posts reserved for PwD candidates exceeded the number of applicants. It noted:

"Being so, I see no reason why the petitioner’s claim of being treated as physically handicapped cannot be accepted, especially when his disability is otherwise not disputed."

While recognizing that the petitioner had not participated in the draw of lots, the court stated that such technicalities should not stand in the way of justice. It remarked:

"Instead of passing any drastic directions for conducting the entire draw of lots of the Safai Karamcharis all over again, suffice to meet the ends of justice and to balance the equities, the claim of the petitioner be rather accepted for his appointment as Safai Karamchari in the Physically Handicapped category."

Also Read: "Tenant Cannot Dictate Landlord’s Property Needs: Kerala High Court – 'Only Such Subsequent Events That Completely Negate Landlord’s Needs Are Decisive

The judgment also held the need for a “humanitarian outlook” in cases involving persons with disabilities and stated that the petitioner’s appointment did not displace any other selected candidate.

The court issued the following directives:

1. The respondents were ordered to verify the petitioner’s medical certificate and other relevant documents.

2. If the documents were found genuine, the petitioner was to be appointed as Safai Karamchari within 30 days from the date he approached the respondents with a copy of the order.

3. The petitioner was granted seniority and notional benefits from the date other candidates were appointed, but without financial benefits, applying the "no work, no pay"

The court concluded by addressing concerns over fairness in granting relief to a candidate who had not participated in the lottery system due to the administrative error. It stated:

"Such are the vagaries of litigation that sometimes result in fortuitous benefits in favor of candidates, as is the case herein, coupled with the fact that the petitioner deserves a humanitarian outlook being a disabled person (90% hearing impairment)."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Vikram Sharma, Jhamak Nagda

For the Respondents: Anurag Shukla

Case Title: Shri Pankaj Vasita v. State of Rajasthan & Others

Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JD:13001

Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9374/2021

Bench: Justice Arun Monga

[Read/Download order]