Rajasthan High Court Quashes Medical Rejection, Orders RAS Appointment as Denial of Appointment to a Meritorious Candidate with Disability is Arbitrary and Unconstitutional
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Sameer Jain quashed the medical rejection of a meritorious candidate with a visual impairment and directed the State to appoint him to the Rajasthan Administrative Services (RAS) cadre, granting all consequential benefits including seniority, arrears, and pensionary advantages. The Court further awarded ₹5,00,000 as compensation for the hardship endured.
The petitioner, a qualified individual suffering from Congenital Nystagmus, was a candidate in the Rajasthan Administrative Services (RAS) Examinations conducted in 1999 and 2003. In the 1999 examination, he secured the 360th rank, and significantly improved to the 21st rank in the 2003 examination. Despite these achievements, the petitioner was declared medically unfit for the RAS cadre due to his visual impairment, assessed at less than 20% disability—below the benchmark 40% threshold.
Following his 1999 examination, a Medical Board assessed him and found him unfit based on corrected visual acuity measurements. Despite his visual condition not qualifying as a benchmark disability under relevant norms, he was denied an appointment under both the general and the physically handicapped categories. An interim court order in 2001 directed that one post be kept reserved for him.
In the subsequent 2003 examination, the petitioner again faced medical rejection. Although he ranked 21st, the State appointed the 22nd rank holder to the RAS cadre. The petitioner was instead appointed to the Rajasthan Accounts Service (a non-technical post, similar in physical demands to RAS roles) but remained excluded from his rightful placement.
Throughout his career, the petitioner consistently demonstrated outstanding academic and service records. He completed higher education with distinction, secured a Gold Medal in M.Sc. (Agronomy), cleared the NET examination twice, and contributed research publications. Despite the visual impairment, his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) rated him as "Outstanding" or "Very Good," and no performance deficiencies were recorded.
The petitioner filed writ petitions challenging the discriminatory denial of his RAS appointment. He argued that his disability did not prevent him from performing administrative duties and that his exclusion was arbitrary, irrational, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Sameer Jain observed, “The petitioner despite being meritorious, qualified, and aspiring was denied consideration for RAS cadre services not because he is unable, but because his disability is not 'sufficiently severe' to meet the technical threshold for reservation.”
The Court recorded that the medical boards' opinions lacked substantive justification: “However, no satisfactory justification of rationale behind the said opinion is noted by the concerned experts.”
It was observed that “where no essential physical prerequisites exist, exclusion solely on medical grounds, in absence of statutory bar or functional incapacity, may amount to arbitrariness.”
Referring to the Government guidelines of 1975, the Court stated, “Both the Rajasthan Administrative Service and the Rajasthan Accounts Service are classified as non-technical services and are not contingent upon heightened physical standards.”
Justice Jain emphasized, “The legal framework, intended to be inclusive, becomes ironically exclusionary. Hence the grief behind the statement: ‘I wish I had been more disabled.’”
Addressing the principle of equality, the Court cited prior rulings and international conventions: “Equal treatment and effective participation of specially-abled persons is a constitutional obligation, and their dignity must not be compromised by flawed interpretations.”
The Court rejected the respondents' defense of estoppel, noting, “The petitioner has consistently challenged the denial of his candidature for services of RAS cadre, as evident from his filings in 2001 and 2006.”
In conclusion, the Court found that the State’s actions had caused “constructive exclusion” and had “frustrated the legislative intent” underlying the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
The Court directed that the decision dated 05.07.2001 declaring the petitioner medically unfit for RAS and allied services be quashed and set aside.
It ordered that the petitioner be appointed to the Rajasthan Administrative Services cadre retrospectively with effect from 21.04.2006, the date on which the next candidate (Rank 22) was appointed. The appointment is to be made with all consequential service benefits including arrears, seniority, promotions, and pensionary entitlements.
The Court further ordered that notional calculation for pension and other service-related benefits be undertaken from the date of filing of the first writ petition in 2001, taking into account the interim order reserving a seat.
As additional relief for the “undue hardships, humiliation and prolonged discrimination” faced by the petitioner, the Court awarded a compensation of ₹5,00,000, payable by the State.
Finally, in a symbolic gesture, the Court directed that the petitioner’s formal RAS cadre appointment be conducted in the presence of the Chief Secretary of Rajasthan.
All directions are to be implemented within one month.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma with Mr. Avi Sharma
For the Respondents: Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC with Mr. Prakhar Jain, Mr. Rahul Verma, Ms. Anjali Sharma
Case Title: Dr. Deva Ram Shivran v. State of Rajasthan and Others
Neutral Citation: [2025:RJ-JP:16526]
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4343/2001 connected with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3500/2006
Bench: Justice Sameer Jain
[Read/Download order]
