Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Dr. Deva Ram Shivran vs State And Ors on 25 April, 2025
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2025:RJ-JP:16526]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4343/2001
Dr. Deva Ram Shivran, aged about 31 years, Son of Shri Laxman
Ram Shivran, resident of Raghunandanpura, Post Mundoti, Via
Phulera, District Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary to the
Government, Department of Personnel, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur through its Superintendent.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3500/2006
Dr. Deva Ram Shivran, aged about 36 years, Son of Shri Laxman
Ram Shivran, resident of Raghunandanpura, Post Mundoti, Via
Jobjer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary to the
Government, Department of Personnel, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Mr. Hemant Swaroop Mathur through Secretary, Department
of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma with
Mr.Avi Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC with
Mr.Prakhar Jain
Mr.Rahul Verma
Ms.Anjali Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
Reserved On :: 05/03/2025
Pronounced on :: 25/04/2025
REPORTABLE :
"I wish I had been more disabled -- then perhaps the system
would have seen me."
(Downloaded on 26/04/2025 at 01:15:42 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (2 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]
These words reflect not a wish for greater suffering, but
a bitter irony -- that in the rigid, checkbox-driven machinery of
the State's welfare framework, a person's lived experience of
disability may fall through the cracks. In a system meant to uplift
the disadvantaged, the petitioner stands at a paradox: disabled,
yet not disabled enough to be seen.
1. Considering the interwoven and identical set of facts
and legal issues framed and put-forth the present petitions were
tagged and are henceforth adjudicated vide this common
judgment, with consent of the counsel representing the parties, in
both the petitions.
2. Before proceeding to examine the present petitions on
their merits, it is imperative to first delineate the foundational
facts and the core issues arising therein. A precise appreciation of
the factual matrix and procedural background is essential to
contextualize the grievances of the petitioners and the legal
questions that fall for adjudication. The salient aspects of the
petitions are, therefore, summarized as under:
In SBCWP No. 4343/2001 :-
3. The petitioner appeared in the Rajasthan Administrative
Services Examination, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'RAS'
Examination) and secured an overall merit rank of 360. However,
during the course of the post-examination formalities, the
petitioner was subjected to a medical examination by the
competent Medical Board. Upon assessment, the petitioner was
declared medically unfit for appointment to the Rajasthan
(Downloaded on 26/04/2025 at 01:15:42 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (3 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]
Administrative Service and its allied services on account of a visual
impairment diagnosed as Congenital Nystagmus (CN).
4. Congenital Nystagmus is an ocular motor disorder of
uncertain etiology, typically manifesting at birth or in early infancy.
It is clinically characterized by involuntary, rhythmic oscillations of
the eyes, which may affect visual acuity and ocular stability.
Despite the said diagnosis, the petitioner's visual impairment, as
assessed, was less than 20%, thereby falling below the minimum
threshold required to qualify as a benchmark disability under
applicable norms.
5. Specifically, in accordance with the criteria laid down in
the relevant notification issued by the Union Public Service
Commission (UPSC) for the Civil Services Examination (CSE), the
petitioner was classified under Category 0, with corrected visual
acuity in the better eye recorded between 6/9 to 6/18, and in the
worse eye between 6/24 to 6/36. As such, the petitioner was not
considered eligible either under the general category (due to
medical unfitness) or under the reserved category for persons with
benchmark disabilities (due to non-qualification of the 40%
disability threshold).
6. During the pendency and adjudication of the present
writ petition, this Court, by way of an interim order dated
03.09.2001, had granted protective relief in favor of the petitioner.
Vide the said interim direction, it was ordered that one seat in the
Rajasthan Co-operative Subordinate Service -- Inspector Grade II
be kept reserved and vacant for the petitioner, subject to the final
outcome of the writ proceedings.
(Downloaded on 26/04/2025 at 01:15:42 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (4 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]
In SBCWP No. 3500/2006 :-
7. The petitioner, pursuant to his candidature in the
Rajasthan Administrative Services Examination, 2003, secured an
overall merit position at Rank 21. Notwithstanding such
commendable performance, the petitioner was appointed to the
Rajasthan Accounts Service instead of the Rajasthan
Administrative Service (RAS), albeit the fact that both services are
categorically classified as non-technical in nature under the
prevailing Medical Examination Instructions issued by the
Government of Rajasthan in the year 1975.
8. Pursuant to the declaration of results and in accordance
with the post-examination protocol, the petitioner was subjected
to a medical examination on 14.11.2005. The Medical Board, upon
evaluation, declared the petitioner unfit for appointment to the
RAS cadre on account of his pre-existing condition of Congenital
Nystagmus (CN). Aggrieved by this determination, the petitioner
submitted a formal representation seeking reconsideration of the
medical opinion. In response, the petitioner was re-examined by
the Medical Board on 02.01.2006. However, the subsequent
medical opinion merely reiterated the prior conclusion of unfitness
without furnishing any cogent reasons or objective justification for
the adverse finding.
9. It is pertinent to highlight that notwithstanding the
petitioner's superior merit position at Rank 21, the respondents
proceeded to appoint the next candidate in order of merit, one Ms.
Prabha Gautam, who secured Rank 22, to the Rajasthan
Administrative Service cadre. In contrast, the petitioner was
(Downloaded on 26/04/2025 at 01:15:42 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (5 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]
appointed to the Rajasthan Accounts Service. It is a matter of
record that the petitioner has, since his appointment, continuously
served in the Rajasthan Accounts Service for a period of
approximately two decades and has discharged his official duties
with utmost diligence, integrity, and to the unqualified satisfaction
of his superior officers.
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE
PETITIONER :-
10. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner had consistently demonstrated
academic excellence and commitment to public service throughout
his educational and professional career. In the year 1989, the
petitioner qualified the Senior Secondary Examination with
71.60% marks from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Ajmer. Thereafter, in 1993, he completed his graduation from
Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner, securing 71.60% marks
and attaining the third position in the University merit list. The
petitioner further qualified the National Eligibility Test (NET) in his
first attempt in 1995 and subsequently completed his M.Sc. in
Agriculture (Agronomy) in 1996 from the RAU University, Bikaner
with distinction, being awarded a gold medal for his academic
performance. Demonstrating his continued dedication to academic
pursuits, the petitioner re-qualified the NET examination in the
years 1997 and 1998. In 1999, he appeared in the Rajasthan
Administrative Services (RAS/RTS) Examination and successfully
cleared all stages, securing the 360th rank in the final merit.
Subsequently, in the RAS Examination conducted in 2003, the
(Downloaded on 26/04/2025 at 01:15:42 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (6 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]
petitioner improved his performance significantly and secured an
overall rank of 21, reflecting his consistent and meritorious
academic and competitive examination record.
11. It was further submitted that the petitioner despite
being a meritorious candidate, is repeatedly subjected to arbitrary
and discriminatory treatment by the respondent authorities,
resulting in denial of rightful appointment in the Rajasthan
Administrative Service (RAS), despite his better performance and
ranking in the merit list. Thence, the petitioner seeks appropriate
relief for the infringement of his fundamental and legal rights. It
was then apprised to the Court that on 05.07.2001, the petitioner
was declared medically unfit for appointment to the RAS on
account of the pre-existing condition termed Congenital
Nystagmus. Nonetheless, the said declaration was made without
affording the petitioner any meaningful opportunity of clarification
or recourse. Thereafter, on 31.07.2001, upon the petitioner’s
request, a re-medical examination was conducted by the duly
constituted Medical Board. However, the petitioner was again
declared medically unfit. In this regard, it was submitted that the
said medical report was not supplied to him despite repeated
requests, thereby denying him access to a vital document
affecting his career and right to employment.
12. Consequentially, the petitioner was constrained to
approach this Court and had filed SB Civil Writ Petition No.
4343/2001 (Dr. Deva Ram Shivram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.),
wherein the petitioner challenged the denial of appointment solely
on the basis of medical unfitness sans taking note of the merit
(Downloaded on 26/04/2025 at 01:15:42 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (7 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]
scored by the petitioner, which he contended to be arbitrary,
without justification, and in violation of the principles of natural
justice.
13. It was averred that in the year 2003, the Rajasthan
Public Service Commission (RPSC) issued a fresh advertisement
for the RAS/RTS Examination, 2003 for filling various posts in the
State and sub-ordinate services. The petitioner, determined to
serve the State, once again participated in the said competitive
examination. The petitioner cleared all the stages of the
examination with distinction and secured an overall 21 st rank in
the general merit category. It is crucial to note that the petitioner
did not avail of any benefit of reservation under the physically
handicapped category, as he did not possess a disability certificate
qualifying him for such classification. Further, vide communication
dated 05.07.2003, the office of the Commissioner (Disabilities)
informed the petitioner that he had less than 20% disability and
hence was ineligible to be issued a disability certificate for availing
benefits under the physically handicapped category. The said
communication is on record as Annexure-8.
14. Thereafter, the petitioner was once again called for a
medical examination on 14.11.2005. However, to the petitioner’s
grave prejudice, he was yet again declared medically unfit on
account of defective vision, without any substantial deviation in
the medical opinion or a detailed consideration of the nature of the
duties to be performed under the RAS cadre. Being aggrieved, the
petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 10.12.2005
before the then Hon’ble Chief Minister and other competent
(Downloaded on 26/04/2025 at 01:15:42 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (8 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]
authorities seeking review of the adverse medical opinion and
consideration for service allocation (Annexure-10 in SBCWP
No.3500/2006). In response, a Medical Board was re-constituted
and the petitioner underwent a subsequent medical examination
on 02.01.2006. However, the outcome of this exercise was once
again unfavorable and remained consistent with the previous
opinion, without providing the petitioner any benefit of doubt or
reasonable accommodation.
15. It was sequentially argued that on 21.04.2006, a
candidate namely Ms. Prabha Gautam, who stood 22 nd i.e. next in
the merit list and a rank lower to the petitioner, was appointed to
the RAS cadre service along with other candidates, while the
petitioner stood excluded without being provided any valid or
reasoned justification. It was further submitted that on the very
next day, i.e. on 22.04.2006, the Government, invoking its powers
of discretion and purported excellence, appointed the petitioner
not to the RAS cadre service, but to the Rajasthan Accounts
Service, despite the fact that both the services were classified
under the “non-technical category” under the relevant recruitment
guidelines framed and issued by the Government of Rajasthan,
Department of Personnel (Group II) in the year 1975
(hereinafter referred to as ‘guidelines of 1975’). Therefore, it
can be deduced that this act of appointing the petitioner to a
service other than the one earned on merit, and lower in
preference, without any objective rationale, is arbitrary,
unjustified, and violative of the fundamental rights of the
(Downloaded on 26/04/2025 at 01:15:42 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (9 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]
petitioner as enshrined under the provisions of Articles 14 and 16
of the Constitution of India.
16. It was also apprised to the Court that as per the
Instructions for Medical Examination dated 01.01.1975 bearing
No. F.15(1)DOP/A-II/74-I while holding that a candidate is not fit
according to the norms laid down in those guidelines i.e.
Guidelines of 1975, it would be permissible for a Medical Board to
recommend to Government of Rajasthan for reasons specifically
recorded in writing that the candidate in question may be
admitted to the service without any disadvantage to the State
government. At the same time, by the said guidelines it was made
unambiguous that it is to be noted that the question is one of the
likelihood of continuous service and the rejection of a candidate
need not be advised on account of the presence of a defect which
is only a small proportion of cases, if found to interfere with
continuous effect of service.
17. In these circumstances, the petitioner was left with no
alternative remedy but to approach this Court once again by filing
the a writ petition in 2006 (connected herein), seeking appropriate
directions for appointment in the Rajasthan Administrative Service
in accordance with his merit, and to set aside the medical
unfitness findings as being unreasoned and arbitrary.
Nevertheless, the continued exclusion of the petitioner from the
RAS cadre service, despite demonstrable merit and in absence of
any sustainable medical disqualification, is violative of his
fundamental rights and liable to be set.
(Downloaded on 26/04/2025 at 01:15:42 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (10 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]
18. In view of the factual background already submitted
before the Court, it was reiterated that the petitioner is an
academically distinguished and professionally accomplished
individual who has consistently demonstrated merit, competence,
and administrative capability throughout his career. Learned
counsel submitted that the petitioner is a Gold Medalist in M.Sc.
(Agronomy), conferred by a recognized university, and his
achievements in academics are reflective of his cognitive and
professional abilities. It was submitted that such academic
excellence negates any presumptive inference of incapability in
discharging administrative duties under the RAS cadre.
Nevertheless, the petitioner holds a ‘B’ Certificate of the National
Cadet Corps (NCC) and has qualified the National Eligibility Test
(NET), in addition to publishing 15 peer-reviewed research papers
and authoring a book titled “Agronomic Terminology”, published by
the Indian Society of Agronomy, IARI, New Delhi. These
accomplishments substantiate the petitioner’s intellectual and
administrative acumen.
19. Moreover, despite being diagnosed with Congenital
Nystagmus, the petitioner has continuously served in various
high-responsibility public positions inter alia, Treasury Officer,
Chief Accounts Officer, Assistant General Manager (Medical
Services), Comptroller of Sri Karan Narendra Agricultural
University, Officer on Special Duty (Revenue Mobilization), Jaipur
Development Authority, Accounts Officer, Tribal Area Development
(TAD) Department, Jaipur, Accounts Officer, Jila Parishad Nagaur
and has also undergone training at the prestigious Harishchandra
(Downloaded on 26/04/2025 at 01:15:42 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (11 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]
Mathur Rajasthan Institute of Public Administration (HCM RIPA).
At no point the petitioner has faced any impairment which
obstructed the efficient performance of his official duties, nor has
any adverse report been recorded against him in this regard in the
ACRs qua him over the years.
20. In light of the above averred achievements, it was
submitted that the petitioner has demonstrated consistent
administrative and professional excellence, and any inference
drawn solely from a minor physical condition is wholly unjustified,
unreasonable, and contrary to established constitutional and
statutory safeguards.
21. Unfolding the arguments further, learned counsel had
averred that the petitioner has successfully qualified all stages of
the RAS Examination 2003 and secured 21 st rank in the general
category merit list, having undergone the same rigorous
competitive process as other candidates. Thus, the denial of
appointment despite high merit is a manifest violation of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee equality of
opportunity in public employment. The RAS recruitment process is
merit-centric. The petitioner being placed well within the range of
selected candidates, ought to be appointed to the RAS cadre.
Instead, a lower-ranked candidate (Rank 22) was appointed,
thereby evidencing invidious discrimination.
22. Nevertheless, from a rational thinking it can be inferred
that the action of respondents defies all logic and reasoning as
while a person suffering from 40% benchmark disability is eligible
for appointment against the post in question, under the physically
(Downloaded on 26/04/2025 at 01:15:42 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (12 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]
handicapped category, a candidate with a lesser degree of
disability, like the case of the petitioner, and is treated as
medically unfit. Such a candidate may not be entitled to the
benefit of reservation under the physically handicapped category,
yet the statutory declaration clearly indicates that the petitioner’s
condition does not disqualify him.
23. The petitioner was not suffering from a benchmark
disability, as defined under Section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the
Act of 2016), i.e., a disability of 40% or more. In fact, the
Disability Commissioner, vide communication dated 05.07.2003,
certified that the petitioner had less than 20% disability, thereby
disqualifying him from availing any reservation but simultaneously
being unreasonably excluded from general selection. For the sake
of handiness the said definition is reproduced herein below:
(r) “person with benchmark disability” means
a person with not less than forty per cent. of a
specified disability where specified disability has
not been defined in measurable terms and
includes a person with disability where specified
disability has been defined in measurable terms,
as certified by the certifying authority;
24. The action of the respondent authorities in denying
appointment to the RAS cadre, while offering placement in the
Rajasthan Accounts Service (also a non-technical service under
the Guidelines of 1975), is arbitrary and irrational, violating the
Doctrine of Reasonableness as enunciated under the provisions of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the fundamental rights
of the petitioner as enshrined under Article 21 of the same.
Likewise, the denial of service on medical grounds, despite
(Downloaded on 26/04/2025 at 01:15:42 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (13 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]
medical fitness for equivalent posts, amounts to hostile
discrimination and violates the spirit and objectives of the
Guidelines of 1975, which govern classification of services as
technical or non-technical and appointment thereto and Sections
20 and 21, of the Act of 2016 which mandate non-discrimination
in public employment and equal opportunities.
25. Subsequently, it was contended that ever since 2005,
the Union Public Service Commission and Central Government are
appointing physically challenged candidates with benchmark
disabilities in the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) cadre. By
2008, the State of Rajasthan itself had implemented similar
practices in the RAS cadre; moreso, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
and various High Courts have laid down in a catena of decisions
that meritorious candidates with lesser or non-benchmark
disabilities must not be excluded from appointment solely on
medical grounds if they are otherwise capable of discharging the
functions required.
26. The petitioner is consistently rated as “Outstanding” or
“Very Good” in his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) over the
last 20 years of government service, his official record further
affirms that there is no hindrance or barrier arising from his
physical condition. Thus, excluding the petitioner from
consideration due to a disability that is less than the threshold for
even claiming reservation reflects a flawed system, forcing
meritorious persons into an unjust dilemma — to be “more
disabled” to qualify for equitable treatment. This ironical and
(Downloaded on 26/04/2025 at 01:15:42 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (14 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]
unjust position violates both human dignity and equal protection
under law.
27. In support of the contentions noted hereinabove, and to
conclude the stance taken, learned counsel had placed reliance
upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. & Anr. v. Ranjan Tak &
Anr., DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 953/2023, decided
on 29.11.2024, wherein in similar circumstances, the Court
directed appointment of a meritorious candidate with 30%
disability in recognition of their capabilities and in light of the
principles enshrined in the Act of 2016.
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE
RESPONDENTS :-
28. Per contra, learned Additional Government Counsel
appearing for the respondent-State, has strenuously opposed the
reliefs sought in the writ petition and had raised the following legal
and factual contentions:
29. Non-Claim of Reservation under Disability
Category: It was submitted that the petitioner had not, at any
stage, claimed consideration under the reserved category for
persons with disabilities and in the absence of such a claim, the
petitioner cannot subsequently assert any right to reservation
under the physically handicapped category. It is a well-settled
principle that rights flowing from a reserved category cannot be
extended to a candidate who has not claimed such benefit at the
relevant time. The law does not permit retrospective accrual of
(Downloaded on 26/04/2025 at 01:15:42 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (15 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]
such benefit where no foundational claim has been made in the
application or during the selection process.
30. Medical Ineligibility and Supremacy of Medical
Board Opinion: It was further contended that, in accordance with
the prevailing rules and the medical guidelines operative at the
relevant time, the petitioner was declared medically unfit and
unsuitable for the RAS cadre on a recurring basis by the duly
constituted Medical Board. As per Rules 19 and 20 of the
Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct
Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examinations)
Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1999),
fitness as determined by the Medical Board is a mandatory
eligibility criterion. The petitioner, being declared unfit, does not
possess any vested right to seek appointment in the RAS cadre.
Moreover, the consistent view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is
that the opinion of the Medical Board must be accorded primacy in
service matters concerning physical fitness. In support of the
contentions noted hereinabove, learned counsel had placed
reliance upon the ratio encapsulated in No.14666828M Ex CNF
Narsingh Yadav v. Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No.
7672/2019; Om Prakash Singh v. Union of India & Ors.,
Civil Appeal No. 5655/2010; Shri Munna Singh v. Union of
India & Ors., Writ Petition No. 316/2020; D.K. Trivedi &
Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (1986) Supp. SCC 20;
Raojibhai Jivabhai Patel & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.,
(1989) Supp. (2) SCC 744; State of Rajasthan & Ors. v.
Sunita, DB Special Appeal Writ No. 572/2023; decided by the
(Downloaded on 26/04/2025 at 01:15:42 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (16 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]
Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, vide order dated 31.08.2024,
along with other connected appeals.
31. Doctrine of Estoppel and Acquiescence: It was
further submitted that, in view of the petitioner’s medical
ineligibility, the respondent-State, in exercise of its discretionary
powers, considered the case of the petitioner with sensitivity and
granted him appointment in the Rajasthan Accounts Service on
humanitarian grounds. The petitioner, having accepted such
appointment without protest or demur, is now estopped from
challenging the said appointment. The doctrine of estoppel by
conduct and the principle of acquiescence bar the petitioner from
seeking any alternate appointment or claiming elevation to the
RAS cadre.
32. Qua the issue of non-Challenge to Rules and Guidelines
learned counsel had pointed out that the petitioner had neither
challenged the validity of the guidelines of the year 1975 nor the
relevant rules and guidelines that govern recruitment and fitness
for appointment. In the absence of such a challenge, the
petitioner’s claim remains unsustainable in law. Moreso, a
statutory rule or government order carries the presumption of
legality and must be complied with unless declared ultra vires by a
competent court. It was further submitted that, as clarified
through the affidavits of the Chief Secretary and the Principal
Secretary, the reservation or selection of candidates with
disabilities for RAS and IAS services began only during the period
2005-2007. Prior to that, no such reservation existed. Despite
this, the petitioner was favorably considered and accommodated
(Downloaded on 26/04/2025 at 01:15:42 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (17 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]
based on his meritorious record and positive performance
feedback, demonstrating the State’s leniency and empathetic
approach. However, such a one-time exception cannot be
converted into a precedent or a matter of right. Therefore, it can
be inferred that no vested right to employment in a particular
cadre is created by the appointment so granted to the petitioner in
the Rajasthan Account Service cadre.
33. Lastly, it was argued that employment in a particular
cadre or service, especially in posts such as RAS, is not a matter
of right but subject to fulfilling statutory criteria, including medical
fitness. The discretionary power exercised by the State in offering
alternate suitable employment is within its domain and cannot be
converted into an enforceable legal right by the petitioner.
34. In view of the aforementioned submissions, learned
Additional Government Counsel has prayed for the dismissal of the
writ petition, stating that no case is made out for judicial
interference. The action of the respondent-State is well within the
bounds of law, reason, and administrative discretion.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS :-
35. Having heard the rival arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for both the parties, upon a perusal of the
material available on record, more specifically the erstwhile ACRs
of the petitioner, scanning the judgments cited at the Bar and
juxtaposing the contentions noted herein above, this Court at the
outset is of the view that the Indian Constitution enshrines
justice — social, economic, and political — as a core ideal of
the Preamble. India’s model of governance is that of a welfare
(Downloaded on 26/04/2025 at 01:15:42 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (18 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]
state, where the State bears a solemn duty to protect the
interests of its vulnerable and marginalized populations. Article 41
as enshrined in the Directive Principles of State Policy, of the
Constitution of India further obligates the State to secure “the
right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of
unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement.” In this
context, the Act of 2016, is a manifestation of India’s commitment
to equality and dignity for all persons with disabilities. It mandates
non-discrimination in employment (Section 20), reasonable
accommodation, and reservation in government posts.
36. Yet in the matter in hand, the petitioner despite being
meritorious, qualified, and aspiring was denied consideration for a
RAS cadre services not because he is able, but because his
disability is not “sufficiently severe” to meet the technical
threshold for reservation. Thus, he is excluded from both the
general category, due to functional limitations, and from the
reserved category, due to not meeting the 40% disability
threshold. This leads to a tragic administrative blind spot, a form
of constructive exclusion wherein, the petitioner is neither “abled”
nor “disabled enough” to benefit from the system. The legal
framework, intended to be inclusive, becomes ironically
exclusionary. Hence the grief behind the statement: “I wish I had
been more disabled.” It is not a rejection of self, but a damning
critique of a system that values percentage points over real
barriers, and checkboxes over capability. It calls into question
whether the State is truly seeing its citizens, or merely scanning
(Downloaded on 26/04/2025 at 01:15:42 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (19 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]
them for conformity to pre-set categories under the garb of
empathy and consideration.
37. Consequentially, it is apposite to jot down certain
undisputed facts of the present petitions:
37.1 That it is an admitted position that the petitioner
suffers from low vision and is diagnosed with Congenital
Nystagmus.
37.2 That the medical records dated 14 th March, 2001, 31st
July, 2001, 1st December, 2005, and 6th January, 2006 including
the re-examination and re-medical assessments, consistently
conclude that the petitioner is “unfit for RAS, allied services due to
defective vision.” However, no satisfactory justification of rationale
behind the said opinion is noted by the concerned experts.
37.3 That the petitioner had successfully qualified all stages
of the Rajasthan Administrative Services Examination conducted in
the year 1999 and was placed at 360 th position in the overall merit
list. Subsequently, in the RAS Examinations held in the years 2001
and 2003, the petitioner once again qualified all stages and
secured a significantly improved 21st rank in the merit list. The
petitioner, in both the Rajasthan Administrative Services (RAS)
Examinations conducted in the years 1999 and 2003, had
appeared under the ‘general category’ and not under any reserved
category, despite being eligible for Other Backward Classes (OBC)
reservation and having a known medical condition of low vision.
Notably, the petitioner successfully secured 360 th and 21st
positions in the final merit list, respectively, which reflects his
academic and competitive merit beyond any reservation benefit.
(Downloaded on 26/04/2025 at 01:15:42 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (20 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]
37.4 That one Ms. Prabha Gautam, who secured the 22 nd
rank in the said merit list, was appointed to the RAS cadre service.
In contrast, the petitioner, despite attaining the 21 st rank, was
initially excluded from appointment by an order dated 21.04.2006.
However, upon consideration of the petitioner’s representation and
pursuant to directions issued by the office of the Hon’ble Chief
Minister, the petitioner was subsequently allocated to the
Rajasthan Accounts Service on 22.04.2006. The relevant extract
from the reply to the petitioner’s representation is reiterated
hereinbelow:
“fVIi.kh ¼dzfed½
dkfeZd ¼d&1½ foHkkx
fo’k;%& Jh nsokjke f”kojku] vH;FkhZ dks jktLFkku jkT; ,oa v/khuLFk lsok,sa
la;qDr izfr;ksxh ijh{kk ds ifj.kke ds mijkar n`f’V ijh{k.k ds ekin.Mksa dk
Interpretation djkus ds mijkUr lsok vkoUVu djus ckcr~A
d`i;k Jh jktiky flag ;kno] fo”ks’kkf/kdkjh] eq[;ea=h }kjk “kklu lfpo]
dkfeZd foHkkx dks izsf’kr v”kkldh; Vhi fnukad 2-1-2006 dk voyksdu
20@lh ij djsaA mDr Vhi esa jkT; iz”kklfud lsok ds fy, xfBr
fpfdRlh; cksMZ ds n`f’V ijh{k.k ds ekun.Mksa dk vFkZ yxokus ds lEcU/k esa
Jh nsokjke f”kojku ds izdj.k dk ijh{k.k djkrs gq, rF;kRed fVIi.kh Hkstus
ds funsZ”k fn;s x;s FksA eq[;ea=h dk;kZy; dks ;g voxr djk fn;k x;k fd
jktLFkku jkT; ,oa v/khuLFk lsok,a la;qDr izfr;ksxh ijh{kk] 2003 ds ek/;e
ls p;fur vH;FkhZ Jh nsokjke f”kojku esfjV ua- 21 ¼vuqdzekad 543467½ dks
fu;qfDr fn;s tkus ls iwoZ LokLF; ijh{k.k djok;s tkus ds fy, fnukad 14-11-
2005 dks i= ¼i`’B 6@lh½ izsf’kr fd;k x;kA Jh f”kojku dk LokLF; ijh{k.k
fnukad 1-12-2005 dks gksuk r; fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk Jh f”kojku dks iqu% 19-
12-2005 dks ikap vU; vH;fFkZ;ksa ds lkFk LokLF; ijh{k.k gsrq cqyk;k x;kA
ckn esa ;g ijh{k.k tuojh] 2006 ds izFke lIrkg esa lEikfnr fd;k x;kA
iqu% LokLF; ijh{k.k djok;s tkus ij Hkh Jh f”kojku jkT; ,oa v/khuLFk
lsokvksa esa esfMdy cksMZ }kjk ;ksX; ugha n”kkZ;s x;s ¼i`’B 23&27@lh½A
esfMdy cksMZ }kjk Jh f”kojku dks jkT;@v/khuLFk lsokvksa esa fu;qfDr gsrq
v;ksX; n”kkZ;s tkus ij jkT; ljdkj dks Jh f”kojku }kjk vH;kosnu izLrqr
fd;k x;k ¼i`’B 9&17@lh½A pwafd Jh f”kojku }kjk ekuuh;k eq[;ea=h
egksn;k dks izLrqr Kkiu esa dkfeZd ¼d&2½ foHkkx ds fnukad 01-01-1975 dks
fu;eksa esa ls fuEufyf[kr fu;e dk gokyk fn;k x;k Fkk] blfy, izdj.k dks
Li’V fVIi.kh ds fy, “kklu lfpo] fpfdRlk f”k{kk foHkkx dks 12-01-2006 dks
izsf’kr dj fn;k x;k %&
“These instructions are intended to provide guidelines to the
Medical Examiners and a Candidates who does not satisfy the
minimum requirements prescribed in these instruction cannot
be declared fit by the medical Examiners. However, while
Holding that a candidate is not fit according to the norms laid
down in these instructions it would be permissible for a
Medical Board to recommend to the Government of Rajasthan(Downloaded on 26/04/2025 at 01:15:42 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (21 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]for reasons specifically recorded in writing that he/she may
be admitted to service without disadvantage to Government.
If any doubt arises relating to the application and scope of
these instructions it shall be referred to the Government in
the Department of Personnel, whose decision thereon shall be
final.”
Jh f”kojku ds vH;kosnu ij fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; foHkkx dh fVIi.kh@jk;
izkIr djus ds fy, foHkkx }kjk fnukad 2-1-2006 ¼i`’B 18@lh½ o Lej.k&i=
22-2-2006 ¼i`’B 21@lh½ o 1-4-2006 ¼i`’B 22@lh½ dks i= izsf’kr fd;s x;sA
fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; ¼xzqi&1½ foHkkx ls izkIr i= dk i`’B 28@lh ij
voyksdu djsaA
fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; foHkkx ds vuqlkj esfMdy cksMZ HkrhZ lEcU/kh fu;eksa esa
fn;s x;s ekin.Mksa ds vuqlkj gh viuk fu’d’kZ ns ldrk gS rFkk fpfdRlk ,oa
LokLF; foHkkx dh jk; esfMdy cksMZ ls fHkUu gksuk lEHko ugha gSA lkFk gh
mUgksaus dkfeZd foHkkx dks vius Lo;a ds Lrj ij vfUre fu.kZ; ysus dh
dk;Zokgh djus dh jk; nh gSA fu;ekuqlkj esMhdy cksMZ dks ;g “kfDr nh xbZ
gS fd ;fn dksbZ vH;FkhZ HkrhZ fu;eksa esa mYysf[kr fpfdRlh; ijh{k.k ekun.M
iw.kZ ugha dj ik jgk gS rc viuh fyf[kr dkj.k lfgr jk; ds }kjk esMhdy
cksMZ ml vH;FkhZ dh bl “krZ ij fu;qfDr gsrq vfHk”kalk dj ldrk gS fd
jkT; ljdkj dks fdlh izdkj dk disadvantage u gksA bu funsZ”kksa esa
la”k; dh fLFkfr esa ekeyk dkfeZd foHkkx dks lkSaik tk ldrk gS ftldk
fu.kZ; vfUre gksxkA
i=koyh dk voyksdu djus ij Kkr gksrk gS fd jkT; ,oa v/khuLFk lsok,a
la;qDr izfr;ksxh ijh{kk] 2003 esa jktLFkku ys[kk lsok esa dkfeZd foHkkx }kjk
us=ghu vH;FkhZ ds fy;s vkj{k.k fd;k x;k gS ¼i`’B la- 48@lh ,oa 49@lh½A
jktLFkku yksd lsok vk;ksx }kjk ?kksf’kr ifj.kke ds vuqlkj ,d us=ghu
vH;FkhZ dks ;g lsok vkoaVu djus dh dk;Zokgh Hkh dh tk jgh gSA vr% Li’V
gS fd iwjh rjg ls vka[kksa ls ugha ns[k ikus ij Hkh ys[kk lsok dk dk;Z lEiknu
djk;k tk ldrk gSA pwafd orZeku izdj.k esa Jh f”kojku fodykax vH;FkhZ dh
Js.kh esa Hkh ugha vkrs gSa rFkk Worst to Worst muds dsl esa vf/kdrd
iw.kZr;k us=ghu gksuk gh fLFkfr cu ldrh gS rks Jh f”kojku dks dksbZ Hkh lsok
vkoafVr ugha djuk mfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA ;gka ;g mYys[k djuk mfpr
gksxk fd orZeku esa Jh f”kojku ,e-ih-;w-,-Vh-] mn;iqj esa lgk;d izkpk;Z ds
in ij dk;Zjr gS rFkk mudk dk;Z vuqlU/kku ls lacaf/kr gSA Jh f”kojku us
mPp f”k{kk izkIr dh gS rFkk ih-,p-Mh- ,oa uSV ijh{kk Hkh mRrh.kZ dh gS ftlls
;g Li’V gS fd “kS{kf.kd :i ls Jh f”kojku l{ke gSA
Jh nsokjke f”kojku dk ojh;rk dzekad 21 ¼vuqdzekad 443467½ gS] ftlds
vk/kkj ij LokLF; ijh{k.k esa iw.kZr;k fQV gksus ij mUgsa jktLFkku iz”kklfud
lsok dk vkoaVu fd;k tk ldrk Fkk rFkk iz”kklfud lsok ds mijkUr Jh
f”kojku }kjk f}rh; ojh;rk jktLFkku ifjogu lsok dks nh xbZ gSA jktLFkku
jkt; ,oa v/khuLFk lsok,sa la;qDr izfr;ksxh ijh{kk gsrq izsf’kr fjfDr;ksa ds
lEcU/k esa fuEufyf[kr fu.kZ; ls fnukad 28-02-2003 dks i= ¼i`’B 48@lh½
ds }kjk dkfeZd foHkkx }kjk lfpo] jktLFkku yksd lsok vk;ksx] vtesj dks
Hkh voxr djk;k x;k %&
jktLFkku iz”kklfud lsok esa fodykax gsrq fu;ekuqlkj vkj{k.k ugha gSA ;g
jkT; flfoy lsok gSA Hkkjr ljdkj dh vf/klwpuk fnukad 31-05-2001 esa jkT;
flfoy lsok ;k izksosfUl;y flfoy lfoZlst dk dksbZ gokyk ugha gSA vr%
jktLFkku iz”kklfud lsok mDr vf/klwpuk dh ifjHkk’kk esa ugha vkrh gSA vr%
fopkj foe”kZ ds i”pkr fy;s x;s fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj jktLFkku iz”kklfud lsok
esa fodykax gsrq dksbZ vkj{k.k ugha gSA iwoZ esa fodykax gsrq n”kkZ;k x;k vkj{k.k
okil fy;k tkrk gSA
(Downloaded on 26/04/2025 at 01:15:42 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (22 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]
jktLFkku iz”kklfud lsok vf/kdkfj;ksa dks mi[k.M vf/kdkjh@vfrfjDr ftyk
dyDVj vkfn inksa ij fdlh Hkh le; dkuwu ,oa O;oLFkk dh fLFkfr ds
en~nsutj drZO; fu’iknu djrs gq, lgh “kkjhfjd {kerk dh vko”;drk iMrh
gSA blh izdkj jktLFkku ;krk;kr lsok vf/kdkfj;ksa dks dj pksjh jksdus] voS/k
okgu] lapkyu jksdus rFkk fo”ks’k funsZ”k feyus ij fdlh Hkh le; pSfdax vkfn
djuh iMrh gSA vr% bu nksuksa lsokvksa ¼iz”kklfud lsok@jktLFkku ifjogu
lsok½ esa dk;Z lEcU/kh nkf;Ro bl izdkj ds gS fd fdlh Hkh le; QhYM esa
vkdfLed fujh{k.k@dk;Zokgh gsrq tkuk iM+ ldrk gS rFkk nksuksa lsokvksa gsrq
Ik;kZIr us=”kfDr ekin.M dk;Z ds lgh fu’iknu gsrq vko”;d Hkh gSA
vr% bu rF;ksa dh jks”kuh esa dkfeZd ¼fu;e½ foHkkx ds Lrj ls LokLF;
ijh{k.k gsrq tkjh foLr`r fn”kk funsZ”k ¼Instruction as to the Physical
Examination of Candidates for Admission into Various
State Service Under the Government of Rajasthan½ fnukad
1-1-75 ds vuqPNsn&II ¼30@lh½ esa nh xbZ “kfDr;ksa dk fof/kor iz;ksx djrs
gq, vuq”kalk dh tkrh gS fd Jh f”kojku dks HkrhZ fu;eksa esa f”kfFkyrk iznku
djrs gq, jktLFkku ys[kk lsok vkoafVr dh tkosA
¼uohu tSu½
“kklu mi lfpo
“kklu lfpo ¼dkfeZd½
eq[; lfpo
ek- eq[;ea=h egksn;k”
37.5 It is an admitted position, as per the affidavit filed by
the Chief Secretary, that upon due consideration and exercise of
discretion by the State Government, and notwithstanding the
petitioner’s medical condition of low vision, he was found fit for
appointment to the Rajasthan Accounts Service. Accordingly, in
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner
was permitted to join service, reflecting a conscious and reasoned
decision by the competent authority.
37.6 This Court further observes that at no point did the
petitioner apply under or seek the benefit of the physically
handicapped category, nor did he claim any reservation in the
selection process. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius — the
express mention of one category (general) implies the exclusion of
(Downloaded on 26/04/2025 at 01:15:42 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (23 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]the other (reserved), thereby confirming that the petitioner sought
consideration solely on merit.
38. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner does not
fall within the definition of a person with “benchmark disability” as
contemplated under the applicable legal framework, being below
the 40% threshold. The Commissioner for Disabilities, in
categorical terms, recorded a finding that the petitioner does not
possess a benchmark disability. Contrarily, the medical boards,
consistently from the year 1999 through 2006, opined that the
petitioner was unfit for the Rajasthan Administrative Services and
allied services, on account of his visual impairment. This apparent
contradiction between administrative and medical determinations
calls for the application of the principle audi alteram partem i.e.
the right to be heard as well as a harmonized interpretation of
medical incapacity and administrative discretion; however, in the
matter in hand the plea of the petitioner was not considered by
the medical board within the stipulated period, moreover, the
petitioner had to move from pillars to pole to attain the said
medical opinion.
39. Notwithstanding the adverse medical opinions, the
petitioner’s professional record, as reflected in his Annual
Confidential Reports (ACRs), is found to be consistently
exemplary. The petitioner is rated as either “outstanding” or “very
good” in all relevant service periods. No adverse, stigmatic, or
derogatory remarks appear on record. This Court at this nascent
juncture deems it appropriate the rely on the principle of Res ipsa
loquitur i.e. the thing speaks for itself, and is of the opinion that
(Downloaded on 26/04/2025 at 01:15:42 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (24 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]the petitioner’s service record speaks to his efficiency,
competence, and contribution, which has proven to be an asset to
the State across various departments, corporations, and postings.
40. The petitioner’s ACRs, academic records, and service
credentials indicate consistent excellence, as reflected by ratings
of “Outstanding” and “Very Good.” In terms of Rules 19 and 20 of
the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment
by Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1999, the State
Government is vested with discretionary authority to grant
appointments. While such discretion is not a vested right in favour
of the petitioner, once the government itself, through its highest
executive offices, namely the Hon’ble Chief Minister and Chief
Secretary, has exercised this discretion in the petitioner’s favour
for Rajasthan Accounts Services, the subsequent exclusion from
RAS cadre appears to be not only arbitrary, but also discriminatory
and violative of the provisions of the Constitution of India.
41. Upon perusal of the Guidelines of 1975 pertaining to
medical fitness and classification of services, it is noted that the
said guidelines divide governmental services into two broad
categories: technical and non-technical. Technical services include
posts requiring specialized physical standards, such as
engineering, medical, and certain Group ‘B’ services. In contrast,
non-technical services, such as, the Rajasthan Administrative
Services, Rajasthan Accounts Services, and analogous posts, are
not predicated upon stringent physical fitness criteria. The
Guidelines explicitly recognize that individuals with diminished
physical capabilities, including low vision, are capable of
(Downloaded on 26/04/2025 at 01:15:42 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (25 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]discharging duties effectively in non-technical services. Thus,
where no essential physical prerequisites exist, exclusion solely on
medical grounds, in absence of statutory bar or functional
incapacity, may amount to arbitrariness.
42. Upon a comprehensive reading of the Guidelines of
1975 relating to medical assessment for government services, this
Court finds no material distinction between the functional nature
or service requirements of the Rajasthan Administrative Service
and the Rajasthan Accounts Service. Both are classified as “non-
technical services” and are not contingent upon heightened
physical standards. Thus, any differentiation in treatment between
these two cadres, on the ground of medical unfitness due to low
vision, appears to be bereft of any rational basis and is
inconsistent with the object of the said guidelines. Such
differential treatment without intelligible differentia violates the
test laid down in the ratio of E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil
Nadu: (1974) 4 SCC 3.
43. Moreover, in the ratio encapsulated in Oil and Natural
Gas Corporation Ltd. & Anr. (Supra), the Division Bench
categorically held that individuals falling in the intermediate
category i.e., those with less than 40% disability but more than
negligible impairment ought not to be excluded from consideration
merely on the ground of not possessing a benchmark disability.
The Division Bench, while construing Sections 2(h), 2(r), 2(s), and
3 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter
referred to as the Act of 2016), held that:
(Downloaded on 26/04/2025 at 01:15:42 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (26 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]
43.1 The term “discrimination” under Section 2(h) includes
denial of reasonable accommodation;
43.2 The principles of “equality” and “non-discrimination”
enshrined in Section 3 mandate that individuals with disabilities be
treated with parity;
43.3 The definitions of “person with benchmark disability”
under Section 2(r) and “person with disability” under Section 2(s)
must be interpreted harmoniously to avoid exclusion of those with
less than 40% disability from the purview of equal opportunity.
44. The Division Bench held that if persons with benchmark
disabilities are granted reservation and appointment, the exclusion
of those with a lesser degree of disability who are otherwise
meritorious, from the appointment, on grounds of medical
unfitness, would defeat the legislative intent and spirit of the Act
of 2016. It was poignantly observed that such a person cannot be
left to ponder, “Why was I not more disabled, so as to qualify for
consideration?” Such an interpretation would be contrary to
international human rights instruments, including the principles of
the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities (UNCRPD), 2007, The Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and
Full Participation) Act, 1995 and antithetical to the objectives
of the Act of 2016. The relevant extract from the dictum passed
by the Division Bench is reproduced herein below:
“25. While dealing with persons with disabilities, a
public functionary is required to act with higher degree
of sensitivity, objectivity and in furtherance, not only
laws, but also the spirit of the Act of 2016. Equality of
treatment is not merely a statutory right, but a(Downloaded on 26/04/2025 at 01:15:42 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (27 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]fundamental right which is at stake in the present case.
Denial of such right not only violates the Constitution
or Statue, but also the basic human right of specially
abled persons to live with dignity. Learned Single Judge
rightly observed that the treatment meted out to
Respondent No. 1 amounts to rubbing salt to such
injury by denying Respondent No.1 his legitimate and
legal right and make him think the worst that the ball
should have caused 10% more injury so that his merit
would not be trampled upon and he could get
appointment at least against the reserved posts. We
would add by saying that denial of appointment to
Respondent No. 1 has added insult to injury which
must be deprecated.
That is the reason why in the beginning of our
judgment, we have observed that it is the attitudinal
barrier which is the matter of concern. Section 2,
clause (c) of the Act of 2016, in that context, defines
the word, ‘barrier’ as below:
“2. Definitions.–In this Act, unless the context
otherwise requires,–
(a) ……..
(b) …….
(c) "barrier" means any factor including
communicational, cultural, economic,
environmental, institutional, political, social,
attitudinal or structural factors which hampers the
full and effective participation of persons with
disabilities in society;”
26. We hope and trust that the appellants while
dealing with persons with disabilities will act free from
such barrier which hampers the full and effective
participation of the persons with disabilities in the
society. We are also of the view that present is a fit
case where cost should be imposed upon the
appellants.”
45. The petitioner has rendered over two decades of
exemplary service in non-technical roles, where his disability did
not hinder performance. The respondents’ claim of his unsuitability
for field posts is negated by the record of consistent high
performance, thus undermining the rationale for denial of RAS
cadre. Therefore, the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit (an
(Downloaded on 26/04/2025 at 01:15:42 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (28 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]
act of the court shall prejudice no one) must apply to ensure the
petitioner’s rights are not defeated by executive inconsistency.
46. It is also noted that persons possessing benchmark
disabilities have, since the year 2005 up to 2007, been appointed
to high-ranking posts within the Indian Administrative Service
(IAS) and Rajasthan Administrative Service (RAS). The petitioner
has submitted a list of 26 such instances (Reiterated in order
dated 22.01.2025), of which at least five appointments were
expressly acknowledged by the State in the affidavit filed by the
learned Chief Secretary. The only contention raised by the State is
that, during the relevant time, statutory provisions did not
explicitly permit such appointments. Notwithstanding this position,
the State adopted a sympathetic approach by offering the
petitioner an appointment in the Rajasthan Accounts Service,
albeit while declining his claim to the RAS, citing alleged non-
performance in field postings as recorded in the departmental
order-sheet.
47. This Court finds that such selective reliance on medical
assessment and selective exclusion from a particular cadre,
despite meritorious performance and subsequent acknowledgment
of capability in another cadre, warrants judicial scrutiny under the
principles of reasonable classification and substantive equality
enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
48. The Court, invoking the UNCRPD, 2007 principles and
the provisions of the Act of 2016, observes that the law recognizes
two distinct categories:
(I) Persons with benchmark disabilities (≥40%)
(Downloaded on 26/04/2025 at 01:15:42 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (29 of 31) [CW-4343/2001](II) Persons with disabilities (<40%)
The interpretation, as herein drawn by the respondents, that
denies a person with lesser disability from appointment on medical
grounds, while accommodating a more disabled person under the
reservation category, is a paradoxical injustice and contrary to the
doctrine of proportional equality as enshrined under Articles 14,
16, and 21 of the Constitution of India. Such interpretation
frustrates the legislative intent and compels a person to lament
that they were not more disabled.
49. The reasoning adopted in the government’s internal
notes that the petitioner is fit for Rajasthan Accounts Service but
not for RAS, is fundamentally flawed and based on a
misinterpretation of the applicable guidelines. The record shows
that from 2005 to 2007 and earlier, candidates with benchmark
disabilities were appointed to IAS and RAS posts. Thus, the denial
to the petitioner who stands higher on merit and without a claim
for reservation is arbitrary, illusory, and contrary to judicial
precedents and the constitutional mandate of substantive
equality; especially when once the petitioner was adjudged fit for
Rajasthan Accounts Service, and the Guidelines of 1975 treat both
cadres similarly, a contrary view for RAS cannot sustain judicial
scrutiny. The respondents’ selective application of the rules
offends the principle of non-arbitrariness.
50. The Constitution of India and the Act of 2016 provide a
level playing field for differently-abled persons. When a candidate
placed 21st in merit, with outstanding service records, gold
medals, and commendable publications, is denied a rightful post
(Downloaded on 26/04/2025 at 01:15:42 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (30 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]
solely due to lesser disability, it constitutes a direct affront to
Article 14 and amounts to per iniquitatem jus non oritur i.e. a
right does not arise from injustice. The Division Bench in Oil and
Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. & Anr. (Supra) emphasized the
need for sensitive and inclusive governance. Equal treatment and
effective participation of specially-abled persons is a constitutional
obligation, and their dignity must not be compromised by flawed
interpretations.
51. The contention of principles of acquiescence or estoppel
on the ground of the petitioner’s joining Rajasthan Accounts
Service is unsustainable. The petitioner has consistently
challenged the denial of his candidature for services of RAS cadre,
as evident from his filings in 2001 and 2006. Thus, the doctrine of
approbate and reprobate does not apply.
CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS :-
52. In view of the foregoing observations and analysis, this
Court finds the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature for the
RAS cadre services is arbitrary, discriminatory, and
unconstitutional, warranting judicial intervention under Article 226
of the Constitution of India. Thence, the decision dated
05.07.2001 holding the petitioner to be unfit for Rajasthan
Administrative Services and allied services due to defective vision
is hereby quashed and set aside.
53. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed and the
respondents are directed to:
53.1 Grant the petitioner appointment w.e.f. 21.04.2006 i.e.
the date on which the next candidate in merit, Ms. Prabha Gautam
(Downloaded on 26/04/2025 at 01:15:42 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (31 of 31) [CW-4343/2001](Rank 22), was appointed in the RAS cadre service in the
Rajasthan Administrative Service (RAS) cadre; with all
consequential benefits, including arrears, seniority, promotions
and pensionary advantages;
53.2 Include notional calculation for pension and other
service-related benefits from the date of filing of the first petition
in 2001, considering that by way of interim order dated
03.09.2001, granted in SB Civil Writ Petition No.4343/2001, one
post was directed to be kept vacant for the petitioner.
53.4 This Court further directs that, in recognition of the
undue hardships, humiliation and prolonged discrimination
endured by the petitioner, he be compensated with ₹5,00,000/-
(Rupees Five Lakhs Only), to be paid by the respondent-State.
54. In a symbolic gesture of institutional redressal and
acknowledgment of merit, the petitioner shall be formally granted
RAS cadre appointment in the presence of the Chief Secretary of
the State, reflecting a progressive and sensitive governance ethos
toward differently-abled citizens.
55. The above directions shall be implemented within a
period of one month from the date of pronouncement of this
judgment.
56. With these directions, these writ petitions stand
allowed. Stay application and/or pending applications, if any, shall
stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
Preeti Asopa
(Downloaded on 26/04/2025 at 01:15:42 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link