Unfilled PwD Reserved Vacancies Must Be Carried Forward: Patna High Court Says Recruitments Must Strictly Follow RPwD Act

The bench noted that the Act of 2016 is a Central legislation enacted by the Parliament, occupies the field and any executive resolution must strictly adhere to the statutory framework. The petitioners, primarily candidates from the Orthopedically Handicapped (OH) category had argued that unfilled vacancies in other PwD sub-categories (Visually, Hearing, and Mentally Handicapped) ought to have been interchanged within the same recruitment cycle in terms of the 2017 Resolution, instead of being carried forward as per the 2021 Resolution.

A bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri after considering a catena of judgments observed “…that any recruitment notification de hors the Statue is ultra vires to the Statute. The petitioners are claiming recruitment following 2017 Rules, which is not in conformity with the declaration of reservation of vacancies in establishments meant for persons with disabilities and the manner of recruitment to fill up such vacancies. This is the principal reason followed by the BTSC to fill up the vacancies reserved for persons with disabilities in the manner provided in Section 34 of the 2016 Act”.

“The petitioners cannot claim their right of recruitment following 2017 Rules, when the Rule is ultra vires to the Statute”, the bench categorically observed.

Senior Advocate Nivedita Nirvikar appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Pratik Kumar Sinha appeared for the respondent.

In the matter, a batch of petitions raised the same and identical issue in the matter of selection to the post of Junior Engineer, in relation to filling up of vacancies by way of horizontal reservation for handicapped candidates and relaxation in fitness criteria if sufficient number of candidates from the category are not available.

The Court while rejecting the contention, observed that Clauses (viii) and (ix) of the 2017 Resolution were not aligned with Section 34(2) of the 2016 Act, which mandates that if a reserved vacancy cannot be filled in a recruitment year due to non-availability of a suitable candidate with benchmark disability, it must be carried forward to the succeeding recruitment year. Only thereafter can interchange among the five disability categories be undertaken.

The Court emphasised that executive instructions cannot override or deviate from statutory provisions, relying on settled Supreme Court precedents. It further held that once the foundational recruitment framework itself was inconsistent with the parent statute, no enforceable legal right accrued to the petitioners to seek appointment under the earlier scheme.

Addressing the argument that the State had “changed the rules of the game” mid-process by applying the 2021 Resolution, the Court clarified that correction of a statutory inconsistency cannot be termed as altering the rules arbitrarily. Since the 2016 Act is the source of the right to reservation, any rule or resolution inconsistent with it is ultra vires and liable to be brought in conformity with the statute.

Therefore, holding that no indefeasible right arises merely from inclusion in a merit list, the Court dismissed all connected writ petitions, while making no order as to costs.

Cause Title: Rajeev Ranjan & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors. Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1373 of 2025

Appearances:

Petitioner: Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Advocate, Shashank Shekhar, Arya Achint, Advocates.

Respondent: Pratik Kumar Sinha, Nikesh Kumar, Praveen Tiwari, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment