Relaxation In Selection Criteria For PwD Candidates A Constitutional Obligation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Formulation Of Norms

The Court was hearing a batch of writ petitions challenging the denial of reservation and relaxation in recruitment processes for candidates with disabilities in posts under the Haryana State Pollution Control Board.

A Bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar observed: “Implementing relaxation in selection standards for persons with disabilities in order to provide them reasonable accommodations, in terms of Sections 2(y) & 3(5) of the RPWD Act, does not violate Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. If the selection process were carried out on strict equal terms in a mechanical manner, the cause of substantive equality would fail. Thus, providing differential treatment to persons with disabilities treatment to remove disadvantage does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The State bears the responsibility to remove barriers that obstruct genuine opportunities for persons with disabilities, and such relaxation ensures that equality becomes real, meaningful and transformative rather than merely formal and illusory”.

“As such, the relaxation in selection criteria for persons with disabilities is not a concession but a constitutional obligation to achieve substantive equality in furtherance of Article 14, 16, 21 of the Constitution and the statutory framework of the RPWD Act”, the Bench added.

Advocate Shalender Mohan appeared for the appellants, while Additional Advocate General Vikrant Pamboo represented the respondents.

Background

The petitioners challenged recruitment advertisements and selection processes wherein either no posts were reserved for persons with disabilities despite backlog vacancies, or minimum qualifying marks were applied uniformly, leading to the non-selection of any candidate from the PwBD category.

It was contended that such practices violated the statutory mandate under the RPWD Act, particularly provisions relating to reservation, reasonable accommodation, and removal of barriers to equal participation. The petitioners further relied upon governmental instructions mandating relaxation of standards where sufficient candidates from the PwBD category are not available.

The respondents, on the other hand, argued that relaxation was not mandatory and that uniform standards ensured administrative efficiency, further contending that the recruitment process had been conducted in accordance with prescribed procedures.

Court’s Observation

The Court traced the constitutional philosophy underlying Articles 14, 16, and 21, holding that equality is not confined to formal uniformity but extends to substantive equality. It was observed that persons with disabilities face systemic and structural disadvantages, and equal treatment without accommodation perpetuates inequality rather than remedying it. It held that “if the selection process [is] carried out on strict equal terms in a mechanical manner, the cause of substantive equality would fail.”

The Court emphasised that Sections 2(y) and 3(5) of the RPWD Act impose a positive obligation on the State to provide “reasonable accommodation,” which includes modification of selection criteria where necessary. It held that such accommodations are not discretionary but flow from statutory and constitutional mandates.

The Court further observed that failure to provide such accommodation would render reservation provisions ineffective and reduce the statutory scheme to a mere formality.

Rejecting the argument that relaxation undermines merit, the Court held that differential treatment aimed at removing disadvantage is consistent with constitutional principles. It observed that “relaxation in selection criteria for persons with disabilities is not a concession but a constitutional obligation to achieve substantive equality.”

The Court further held that the uniform application of qualifying standards to persons with disabilities and able-bodied candidates amounts to indirect discrimination, as both groups do not operate under identical conditions.

The Court underscored the responsibility of the State to dismantle barriers and ensure meaningful access to opportunities. It held that the State must actively design recruitment processes that account for structural disadvantages and ensure that persons with disabilities are not excluded due to rigid criteria.

In the cases at hand, the Court concluded, “no relaxations were provided at any stage of the selection process to persons with disabilities. The grievance is not directed at the adequacy or fairness of the relaxation granted to the petitioners, but at the total denial of any relaxation, which is ex facie contrary to the constitutional guarantees and the mandate of the RPWD Act”.

Conclusion

The High Court allowed all the writ petitions and issued comprehensive directions to operationalise the mandate of the RPWD Act.

It directed the Chief Secretary to the Government of Haryana to constitute a committee within two weeks to determine the extent of relaxation in selection criteria for candidates with disabilities, and to finalise such norms within four weeks.

The respondent Commission was directed to reconsider the cases of the petitioners in light of the relaxed norms and recommend them for appointment if found eligible.

Further, the Chief Secretaries of Punjab, Haryana, and U.T. Chandigarh were directed to formulate clear instructions ensuring implementation of relaxed standards in all future recruitment processes.

Cause Title: Sohan v. State of Haryana & Ors Along With Connected Matters (Neutral Citation: 2026:PHHC:033034)

Appearances

Petitioners: Advocates Shalender Mohan, Dr Purushotam, Tarun Kumar, Jasbir Singh, Ajit Singh

Respondents: Additional Advocate General Vikrant Pamboo; Advocates Prince Singh, Sukhdeep S. Parmar, Gurnoor S. Sandhu, Randeep Singh Dhakla, Sheena Dahiya

Click here to read/download Judgment