Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a petition filed by petitioners, persons with significant disabilities challenging the selection process of Class IV posts advertised on 26-07-2024, 06-08-2024, and 21.08.2024, which ignored the application of circular dated 03-07-2018 mandating that persons with higher disabilities be given preference in public employment, a single-judge bench of Subodh Abhyankar, J., quashed the impugned advertisements and held that the selection process, which prioritised educational qualifications over disability severity, contradicts the spirit of the of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act).
The petitioners highlighted that the respondents appointed candidates with 75%, 70%, and 45% disabilities while rejecting those with 92.5% and 100% disabilities. The petitioners contended that the selection process prioritised educational qualifications over disability severity, leading to the appointment of candidates with lower disability percentages while rejecting those with higher disabilities. The petitioners contended that such appointments violated Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act and Rule 12 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 (Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules). The petitioners cited the Karnataka High Court’s judgment in State of Karnataka v. Latha H.N., (W.P. No. 19994/2024), to support their argument that individuals with higher disabilities should be prioritised in employment.
However, the respondents defended the selection process and asserted that the selection process complied with all applicable government circulars. It was argued that priority should be given to educational qualifications rather than disability percentage. It was contended that the advertisement dated 26-07-2024 referenced all relevant circulars, implying compliance.
The Court noted that the circular dated 03-07-2018 mandated preference for persons with higher disabilities unless their condition prevents them from performing the job. The Court noted that the recruitment advertisements did not explicitly mention compliance with the 03-07-2018 circular. The Court further noted that in the present case, it is not the case of the respondents that the persons with higher disability would not be able to perform the job as is required for the post advertised.
The Court stated that “there is a high probability that when a person suffers from higher percentage of disability, his chances to excel in academics also reduce substantially,” hence the condition 4 of the advertisement dated 23-07-2024 runs counter to the spirit of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act. The Court held that the selection process, which prioritised educational qualifications over disability severity, contradicts the spirit of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.
The Court held that respondents failed to comply with circular dated 03-07-2018 and noncompliance of the same vitiates the entire process of recruitment/selection process and quashed the appointments made under the impugned advertisements. The Court directed the respondents to issue fresh advertisements strictly adhering to the circular dated 03-07-2018 within four months.
[Siddhi Pal v. Kaushal Vikas Kshetriya Kaaryalaya, 2025 SCC OnLine MP 2507, decided on 24-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Ms. Shanno Shagufta Khan, Counsel for the Petitioner
Shri Kushal Goyal, Dy.AG appearing on behalf of Advocate General, Counsel for State
