Delhi High Court Upholds Appointment of Disabled Candidate;
Clarifies That PwD Reservation Applies Even to Unreserved Posts
New
Delhi, February 4, 2026:
In
a significant judgment reinforcing the statutory rights of persons with
disabilities in public recruitment, the Delhi High Court has upheld the
validity of selection made under the disability reservation framework, while
dismissing a challenge to the recruitment process for the post of Librarian in
a Delhi Government-aided school. The Court underscored that reservation for
persons with benchmark disabilities operates horizontally across categories and
cannot be defeated merely because a vacancy is described as “UR” in the
advertisement.
The
case arose from a writ petition challenging the recruitment process initiated
pursuant to an advertisement dated 31 May 2018 for various posts, including one
Librarian post. The petitioner alleged unfair denial of experience weightage
and contended that the post, advertised as unreserved, was later filled by a
candidate with disability without clear disclosure.
Strong
Judicial Emphasis on Rights of Persons with Disabilities
The
Court gave particular importance to the statutory framework under the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, noting that disability reservation is
horizontal in nature and applies across vertical categories such as UR, SC, and
OBC. It clarified that the mere description of a post as “UR” does not preclude
its operation as a PwD-reserved seat when disability identification for Group
‘B’ posts has been indicated in the advertisement.
The
advertisement in question explicitly mentioned that certain Group ‘B’ posts
were identified for persons with disabilities. The Court held that this
disclosure was sufficient and that the application of PwD reservation to the
Librarian post was neither an afterthought nor legally impermissible.
Representation
and Appearance
Anuj
Aggarwal, Advocate, along with a team of advocates, appeared for Respondent No.
5, Ambika Batra, a disabled candidate (person with benchmark disability –
hearing impairment), whose selection was ultimately upheld by the Court.
Court’s
Findings on Eligibility and Merit
The
Court further noted that the petitioner was independently ineligible on the
ground of age, as she had crossed the prescribed upper age limit at the time of
advertisement. Participation in the interview process, even if allowed
administratively, could not cure statutory ineligibility.
On
the issue of experience weightage, the Court observed that the applicable
marking scheme did not extend benefit of experience to part-time or ad hoc
engagements lacking regular pay scale and formal certification. Judicial
review, the Court held, cannot rewrite recruitment rules or equate temporary
engagement with regular service.
Importantly,
the Court also recorded that even if maximum experience marks were
hypothetically granted to the petitioner, she would still not have surpassed
the selected candidate in the merit list, thereby negating any claim of
prejudice.
Protection
of Long-Standing Appointment of Disabled Candidate
The
Court took note that the selected PwD candidate had joined service in July 2019
and had continued in uninterrupted service since then. In such circumstances,
the Court reiterated that long-standing appointments should not be unsettled
unless a clear illegality going to the root of the process is demonstrated.
Broader
Significance for Disability Jurisprudence
This
judgment is being viewed as an important affirmation of inclusive recruitment
principles. By recognising the lawful operation of horizontal reservation for
persons with disabilities and upholding the selection of a disabled candidate,
the Delhi High Court has reinforced the legislative mandate of equal
opportunity and substantive representation in public employment.
The
Court ultimately dismissed the writ petition, holding that there was no
illegality in the recruitment process, no violation of the marking scheme, and
no demonstrable prejudice to the petitioner, while affirming the legality of
the appointment made under the PwD reservation framework.
[Sunita Rani Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., W.P. (C) No.
223/2019, Delhi High Court, decided on 04.02.2026]
https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php
Anuj Aggarwal
Advocate
K-17, 2nd Floor,
Jangpura Extension,
New Delhi - 110014
483, Block-2, Lawyers
Chambers,
Delhi High Court, New
Delhi-110003
Mobile – 9891403206
Landline – 011 - 35554905
Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment