Supreme Court To Hear Plea Challenging Exclusion Of Blind Persons From PwD Quota In Uttarakhand Judicial Service Exam

The Supreme Court today (June 9) heard the challenge to the exclusion of persons with blindness and locomotor disability, and also persons who are not domiciled in Uttarakhand, from being eligible for the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) quota in the Uttarakhand Judicial Exams.

The bench of Justice SVN Bhatti and Justice PB Varale was hearing the challenge to the constitutionality of the Advertisement dated 16.05.2025 issued for recruitment to the Uttarakhand Judicial Service Civil Judge (Junior Division). The petitioner is a person with 100% visual impairment and is challenging the exclusion of blind, visually impaired persons and those with locomotor disability from being eligible for the judicial exams. 

Initially, the bench was disinclined to entertain the plea and asked the petitioner to move to the High Court. 

"In all these matters, we insist upon moving the High Court first. ...100/100 we are convinced, you must go to the High Court first." 

The counsel for the petitioner, Amar Jain, however, emphasised that since a similar issue is pending before the Supreme Court, the present plea could also be entertained. He also referred to the decision taken Suo Motu  In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services,  where the Court struck down a rule of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services Rules to the extent it barred visually impaired and low vision candidates from judicial service.

Notably, in the said Suo Motu, the Court has now directed the States to file a compliance with the directions. 

Considering the same, the bench directed that the matter be placed before the CJI, and only after the instructions of the CJI, it could be tagged with the pending Suo Motu 

"Mr so and so at the outset invites our attention to page 90 and states that in Suo Motu matters where this court is considering a similar or larger issue that is pending, and if the present WP is tagged, the petitioner will have the opportunity to assist the court. We appreciate the view that the WP can be tagged, subject to the order of the CJI," the bench observed in order.

Why is the Uttarakhand judicial service notification under challenge?

The advertisement has been challenged as it limits the scope of eligibility under the seats reserved for the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD). The seats are categorically reserved only for 4 subtypes - Leprosy Cured, Acid Attack Victims, and Muscular Dystrophy.

The plea states that such a limitation arbitrarily excludes all other benchmark disabilities, including blindness and locomotor disability, in violation of Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act).

Notably, S. 34(1)(a) states : Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every Government establishment, not less than four per cent. of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength in each group of posts meant to be filled with persons with benchmark disabilities of which, one per cent. each shall be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (a), (b) and (c) and one per cent. for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (d) and (e), namely:

(a) blindness and low vision;

(c) locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy;

The petition also highlights that the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission has overlooked the request of the petitioner for alloting a scribe during the exams.

The plea mainly challenges the exclusion on three main aspects : (1) its violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India; (2) it is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services V. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh; (3) the eligibility under the PwBD category has been also denied for not a being a domicile of the Uttrakhand state.

In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services, the Supreme Court bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan struck down a rule of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services Rules to the extent it barred visually impaired and low vision candidates from judicial service.

The Court emphatically held that "visually impaired and low vision candidates are eligible to participate in the selection for posts under the judicial service.

The following reliefs have been sought by the petitioner towards Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (respondent no.1); Registrar General, High Court of Uttarakhand (respondent no.2) and State of Uttarakhand, through Secretary, Department of Social Welfare (respondent no.3) :

A. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Advertisement dated 16.05.2025 issued by Respondent No. 3, insofar as it prevents persons who are not domiciled in the State of Uttarakhand from applying in the reserved PWBD category and accordingly avail of the reasonable accommodation that they are entitled to, under the RPWD Act, 2016;

B. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the aforesaid advertisement, insofar as it restricts eligibility for persons with benchmark disabilities only to the subcategories of Leprosy Cured, Acid Attack Victims, and Muscular Dystrophy;

C. Direct Respondent No. 1 to revise and re-issue the Advertisement dated 16.05.2025 to allow all persons with benchmark disabilities who are not domiciled in the state of Uttarakhand, as well as the persons who have other disabilities besides the 4 specified subcategories, to apply for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division);

D. Direct Respondent No. 2, to ensure strict adherence to the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services v. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Suo Motu WP. (Civil) No. 2 of 2024 dated 03.03.2023, and to file a status/compliance report within a time bound schedule;

E. Direct Respondent No. 3 to undertake a fresh exercise for identifying posts suitable for reservation for PwDs, in compliance with Section 34 of the RPwD Act, Rule 11 of the RPWD Rules, and the applicable guidelines and directions issued by the Central Government, while accounting for principle of reasonable accommodation, advancements in assistive technologies, and the functional requirements of the posts;

The petition had been filed with the assistance of AOR Vikram Hegde.

Case Details : SRAVYA SINDHURI Versus UTTARAKHAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS.| W.P.(C) No. 570/2025