State Can Interchange Reservation Among Disability Categories; Exclusion Of Visually Impaired From Commerce Faculty Posts Not Illegal : Chhattisgarh HC

Background Facts

An advertisement for 1384 posts of Assistant Professor was issued by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) on 23.01.2019. The advertisement included 184 posts in Commerce subject. A corrigendum dated 23.02.2019 was also issued to amend the number of posts reserved for physically handicapped persons. The appellant being a visually impaired candidate, applied for the post on 14.03.2019. He appeared in the written examination conducted on 05.11.2020 and 07.11.2020, and qualified for the interview. However, his name did not find place in the final selection list.

The appellant filed a writ petition seeking a direction to CGPSC to provide 2% reservation for blind and low vision candidates in the Commerce faculty, both for current and backlog vacancies. Further he sought to restrain the respondents from filling up the posts without such reservation. He also contended that in the earlier advertisement dated 10.09.2014, reservation was granted to visually handicapped candidates for Commerce posts, but the 2019 advertisement and corrigendum excluded them arbitrarily. However, the writ petition was dismissed by the single judge on 09.06.2025. It was held that the identification of posts for reservation is within the domain of the appointing authority. Further it was held that the nature of duties in Commerce faculty require extensive writing and numerical work, therefore reservation was rightly granted only to candidates under One Arm (OA) and One Leg (OL) categories.

Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the intra-court appeal against the order dated 09.06.2025.

It was submitted by the appellant that the action of the respondent of not providing 2% reservation to blind and low vision person in the subject Commerce, in the impugned advertisements for the post of Assistant Professor is bad in law. It was further submitted that in the earlier advertisement published on 10.09.2014 for the post of Assistant Professor reservation was granted to Visually Handicapped for Commerce subject. However, contrary to the previous advertisement, no reservation had been provided in the Advertisement dated 23.01.2019 as well as Corrigendum dated 23.02.2019. It was further submitted that pursuant to order dated 26.03.2019 and final order dated 24.04.2019 the respondent had not considered reservation and no corrigendum had been issued. Thus, action of the respondents was arbitrary and illegal.

On the other hand it was submitted by the respondents that the identification of posts for reservation is the prerogative of the State Government. The CGPSC being only the recruiting agency has no power to alter the same. It was stated that the recruitment was carried out strictly as per the 100-point roster and the policy dated 27.09.2014. It was further amended by order dated 10.04.2019, for compliance with the 7% reservation mandated under the RPwD Act, 2016.

It was further submitted that the post of Assistant Professor in Commerce was identified as suitable only for One Arm (OA) and One Leg (OL) categories, because the nature of duties required extensive writing of numerals and figures. It was contended that under Section 34 of the RPwD Act, the State is empowered to interchange vacancies among disability categories. Therefore, non-inclusion of visually impaired candidates in Commerce faculty cannot be termed illegal.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the Court that under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the appropriate Government has the power to interchange vacancies among the five categories of benchmark disabilities if the nature of the post does not permit employment of a particular category. It was held that the State Government had validly identified the posts of Assistant Professor in Commerce faculty as suitable only for candidates under One Arm (OA) and One Leg (OL) categories because the nature of duties involved extensive writing and numerical work. Therefore, the exclusion of visually impaired candidates could not be termed illegal.

It was further observed by the Court that the appointing authority is the best judge to assess the suitability of candidates for a particular post. Further that judicial interference in academic and administrative decisions must remain limited. It was further held that the reliance placed by the petitioner on National Federation of Blind was misplaced, because the Supreme Court had recognized that if a post is not suitable for one category of disability, it can be identified for another.

It was also noted that the petitioner, having participated in the recruitment process without objection, cannot later turn around and challenge the same after being unsuccessful. The case of Madan Lal v. State of J&K was relied upon wherein it was held that a candidate who takes part in the process of selection cannot question it only because the result is not favourable.

It was held by the court that Section 34 of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 allows interchange of categories with government approval, which was followed. The reservation was already provided to OA and OL candidates in commerce, therefore it was held that refusal to extend it to VH candidates was neither illegal nor arbitrary.

With the aforesaid observations, the Court upheld the decision of the Single Judge and dismissed the appeal, affirming that the reservation extended to OA and OL categories in Commerce faculty posts was lawful and valid.

Case Name : Saroj Kshemanidhi vs Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Raipur & Ors

Case No. : WA No. 586 of 2025

Counsel for the Appellant : Saroj Kshemanidhi

Counsel for the Respondents : Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate, Y. S. Thakur, Additional Advocate General