Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a 25-year-old qualified individual with low vision, challenged the rejection of his candidature for the post of Seasonal Spraying Field Worker under the disabled person reservation category. He held a temporary disability certificate showing 40% disability, valid until 06/09/2025. Following an advertisement for 69 posts, including 3 reserved for disabled persons, he applied and was called for document verification on 08/04/2025. The selection committee rejected his candidature by order dated 28/03/2025 on the sole ground that the certificate was temporary. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner obtained a permanent disability certificate dated 07/08/2025 confirming the same 40% low vision. The post remained vacant as no other disabled candidate was available. The respondents argued that eligibility must be determined at the time of verification and selection, and the post required permanent benchmark disability. The petitioner contended that his subsequent permanent certificate entitled him to appointment, especially since the post was still vacant. The High Court analyzed the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, noting that the Act does not distinguish between temporary and permanent disability; it only defines 'person with benchmark disability' under Section 2(r) as a person with not less than 40% specified disability. Low vision is a specified disability under the Schedule. Section 34 provides for reservation of 4% for benchmark disabilities, with sub-section (2) mandating carry forward of vacancies when no suitable disabled person is available. The Court held that the Act is a social welfare legislation and must be interpreted beneficially. Since the petitioner was the only candidate from the disabled category and the vacancy remained unfilled, Section 34(2) operated to protect his rights. The Court concluded that the rejection was illegal and directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner subject to verification of his permanent disability certificate and other formalities.
Headnote
A) Rights of Persons with Disabilities - Reservation and Carry Forward of Vacancies - Section 2(r), Section 34(2) Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - The petitioner, having 40% low vision (temporary certificate), applied for a reserved post; rejection on ground of temporary certificate. The Court held that benchmark disability is defined by percentage, not permanence; Section 34(2) mandates carry forward of vacancy when no suitable disabled candidate available, thus the petitioner, being the only candidate, was entitled to appointment, especially as he later obtained permanent certificate confirming the same disability. Held that rejection was illegal; writ allowed, directed appointment. (Paras 10-19)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, who possessed a temporary disability certificate of 40% low vision at the time of document verification, was entitled to claim appointment under the reserved category for disabled persons under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, particularly in light of Section 34(2) and the subsequent procurement of a permanent certificate.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The rejection order dated 28/03/2025 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner to the post of Seasonal Spraying Field Worker under the disabled person category, subject to verification of his permanent disability certificate dated 07/08/2025 and compliance with other formalities. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Definition of person with benchmark disability under Section 2(r) of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act
- 2016
- Reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities under Section 34
- Carry forward of vacancies under Section 34(2)
- Social welfare legislation interpretation
- Temporary disability certificate not disqualifying if benchmark disability exists
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (07) 180
WRIT PETITION NO. 4702 OF 2025
Anil L. Pansare, Rajnish R. Vyas
Citation not available, 2026:BHC-NAG:9304-DB
Anand S. Deshpande, S.A. Ashirgade, D.R. Bhoyar
The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Public Health Department; The Collector, The President, District Selection Committee, Zilla Parishad, Wardha; The Chief Executive Officer, Member, Zilla Parishad, Wardha; The Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Parbhani
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging rejection of candidature for the post of Seasonal Spraying Field Worker.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the rejection order dated 28/03/2025 and sought a direction to the respondents to appoint him to the reserved post under the disabled person category.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's candidature was rejected because his disability certificate was of a temporary nature, whereas the respondents insisted on permanent benchmark disability.
Previous Decisions
The selection committee rejected the petitioner's candidature on 28/03/2025; no prior judicial decision.
Issues
Whether a candidate with a temporary disability certificate of 40% low vision is entitled to claim reservation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 when no other disabled candidate is available and the post remains vacant.
Whether subsequent acquisition of a permanent disability certificate can cure the defect of having only a temporary certificate at the time of selection.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that he possessed a temporary disability certificate valid till 06/09/2025, and later obtained a permanent certificate on 07/08/2025; since the post remained vacant, he should be appointed as the only candidate from the disabled category.
Respondents contended that eligibility must be determined as on the date of document verification (08/04/2025) and final selection (16/04/2025), and the petitioner did not have a permanent disability certificate then; the post required permanent benchmark disability; reliance placed on Government Resolution dated 13/09/2022.
Ratio Decidendi
Under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the existence of benchmark disability (40% or more) as certified is the determinative factor for reservation, not the permanence or temporariness of the certificate. Section 34(2) is a beneficial provision mandating carry forward of reserved vacancies when no suitable disabled candidate is available, which protects the rights of disabled persons even if their certificate is temporary, provided they subsequently obtain a permanent certificate confirming the same disability. Social welfare legislation must be interpreted to advance its purpose.
Judgment Excerpts
the Act of 2016 does not define the ‘ temporary ’ or ‘permanent’ disability.
The person with benchmark disability means where specified disability has not been defined in measurable terms and includes a person with a disability where specified disability has been defined in measurable terms, as certified by Certifying Authority.
not only the Social Welfare Legislation in the form of Act of 2016, but also benevolent provision of section 34(2) of the Act of 2016 gives helping hand to the person with disability and mandates the employer to carry forward the vacancy for the subsequent recruitment year also.
Procedural History
The petitioner applied for the post of Seasonal Spraying Field Worker in response to an advertisement dated 05/08/2023. He filled the online form on 28/03/2025. He was called for document verification on 08/04/2025. By order dated 28/03/2025, his candidature was rejected. He filed the present writ petition before the Bombay High Court. During pendency, he obtained a permanent disability certificate on 07/08/2025. The respondents filed a reply. The Court heard the matter and reserved judgment on 16/07/2026, and pronounced judgment on 22/07/2026.
Acts & Sections
- Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016: 2(r), 2(s), 2(t), 2(zc), 34, Schedule
