Posts Reserved For PwDs Can’t Be Further Reserved For SC Category: Himachal Pradesh High Court Directs Appointment For Hearing-Impaired Candidate
The Court held that the State acted illegally in denying appointment to a hearing-impaired candidate merely because the PET post was subsequently treated as reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates within the physically handicapped category.
Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a post reserved for persons with disabilities cannot be further reserved for the Scheduled Caste category, observing that such an action is contrary to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mahesh Gupta v. Yashwant Kumar Ahirwar (2007).
The High Court directed the State to offer an appointment to a hearing-impaired candidate to the post of Physical Education Teacher from the date on which the selected candidate had been appointed, with consequential benefits except actual monetary benefits.
The Court was hearing a petition challenging the selection and appointment made to the post of PET Teacher under a special recruitment drive for persons with disabilities.
A Bench of Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj observed that the call letters did not state that the PET post for the hearing-impaired category was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates, and even if it was so reserved, the same was impermissible.
The Court observed: “The Hon’ble Supreme Court has succinctly dealt with the issue that the post under the physically handicapped category cannot be reserved for reserved category.”
Advocate Radhey Shyam Gautam appeared for the petitioner, while Deputy Advocate General Hemant Kumar Verma appeared for the State.
Background
The petitioner, a hearing-impaired candidate with 46% permanent disability, had applied for appointment as a Physical Education Teacher under a special drive for persons with disabilities.
He was called for an interview, where only two candidates from the Kullu district appeared in the hearing-impaired category. The petitioner secured higher marks than the other candidate. The initial interview was later cancelled, and another interview was held by a Special Selection Committee.
The State defended the selection by stating that the petitioner belonged to the general hearing-impaired category, while the post was reserved for Scheduled Caste physically handicapped candidates in the hearing-impaired category. It also stated that another post was reserved for general physically handicapped candidates in the orthopaedic category.
The petitioner argued that neither interview letter mentioned such sub-classification, and that a disability reservation could not be further split on the basis of caste.
Court’s Observations
The Court examined the interview letters, the record summoned from the State, and the Supreme Court’s judgment in Mahesh Gupta v. Yashwant Kumar Ahirwar (2007).
It noted that the post was shown in the record as reserved for SC physically handicapped candidates in the hearing-impaired category, while another post was reserved for general physically handicapped candidates in the orthopaedic category.
The Court stated: “As per the call letters, it was not mentioned that the post, to be filled up from the P.E.T. (hearing impaired) was reserved for Scheduled Caste category. Even if the post was reserved for Scheduled Caste category (hearing impaired), it was against the mandate contained in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Gupta’s case (supra).”
The Court further held: “At that point of time, the post of hearing impaired was not reserved for SC category and, therefore, the action on the part of respondents-State in not selecting the petitioner only for the reason that the post was reserved for SC Physically Handicapped (hearing impaired) and he belongs to general category in the subsequent interview on 28.02.2008 is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.”
The High Court relied on Mahesh Gupta (2007), where the Supreme Court had distinguished vertical reservation under Article 16(4) from horizontal reservation for persons with disabilities under Article 16(1).
Quoting the Supreme Court, the High Court noted: “The State in terms of Article 16 of the Constitution of India may make two types of reservations vertical and horizontal. Article 16(4) provides for vertical reservation; whereas Clause (1) of Article 16 provides for horizontal reservation.”
The Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s observation that disability candidates formed a special class and were not to be further classified by caste in that recruitment context.
The Court observed: “The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Gupta and others vs. Yashwant Kumar Ahirwar and others, AIR 2007 SC 3136 has held that ‘A disabled is a disabled’. The question of making any further reservation on the basis of caste, creed or religion ordinarily may not arise. They constitute a special class.”
Applying that principle, the High Court held that the State’s subsequent reservation of the hearing-impaired PET post for Scheduled Caste candidates was illegal and contrary to law.
The Court also rejected the argument that candidates from outside a particular district could not be considered for posts under the disability category.
It held that persons with disabilities belonging to Himachal Pradesh had a right to be considered for appointment under the category, and that restricting such appointment to a particular district was arbitrary.
The Court stated: “The respondents-State cannot restrict the appointment to a particular District to a physically challenged person and thus the said plea is rejected.”
The Court noted that the petitioner had approached the Court immediately after the impugned selection, and that his candidature had not been considered in the subsequent interview only because the post was treated as reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates.
It also found that the petitioner had secured higher marks in the earlier interview in the hearing-impaired category.
The Court held: “However, the action on the part of the respondents-State to reserve the post of P.E.T. to be filled up from physically challenged person of Scheduled Caste category is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional.”
It added that ordering a fresh interview at this stage would serve no purpose, and therefore directed an appointment as a special case.
Conclusion
The High Court allowed the petition and directed the State to offer an appointment to the petitioner as PET from the date on which the selected candidate was appointed, with consequential benefits except monetary benefits, which would remain notional.
The Court further directed that if the State failed to offer an appointment within three months, the petitioner would be entitled to salary after expiry of that period.
Cause Title: Hoshiyar Singh v. State of H.P. and others (Neutral Citation: 2026:HHC:31275)
Appearances
Petitioner: Radhey Shyam Gautam, Advocate
Respondents: Hemant Kumar Verma, Deputy Advocate General; Rajesh Sharma, Advocate