Justice Jitendra Shantilal Jain, Justice M.S. Sonak, Bombay High Court
No Interference With Concluded Selection Process Of 2008 Due To Enactment Of RPwD Act In 2016: Bombay High Court Dismisses UPSC Aspirant’s Petition
|The petitioner had approached the Bombay High Court with a plea that he was afflicted by obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), which is considered a mental disability under Section 2(s) of the 2016 Act.
While dismissing a petition of a civil services aspirant who was afflicted by obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), the Bombay High Court has observed that due to the change in the legal position brought about by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, there would be no scope to interfere with the concluded selection process of 2006-2008.
The petitioner had approached the High Court with a plea that he was afflicted by obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), which is considered a mental disability within the meaning assigned to this term under Section 2(s) of the 2016 Act.
The Division Bench of Justice Jitendra Jain and Justice M.S. Sonak said, “Though this position may have undergone the legislative change after the 2016 Act came into force, this Act, did not revive the earlier selection processes which were judicially examined and found to be legal proper. Therefore, due to the change in legal position brought about by the 2016 Act, there would be no scope to interfere with the concluded selection process of 2006-2008. Moreover, after the challenge to this selection process involving the nonselection of the Petitioner failed before the Delhi High Court, there is no scope to revisit this issue.”
Senior Advocate Sanjeev Kadam represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Anamika Malhotra represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) initiated the process for appointing candidates to the Civil Services, including the IAS, IPS, and other services, between 2006 and 2008. It was the Petitioner’s case that upon a literal interpretation or rather misinterpretation of the provisions of Sections 32 and 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (1995 Act), reservations for persons with disabilities were provided only for 3% of the posts. Further, the posts identified were only those suffering from (i) Blindness or low vision; (ii) hearing impairment; (iii) Locomotor Disability or Cerebral Palsy. No posts were identified for those suffering from any mental illnesses.
It was the petitioner’s case that even though he suffered from mental illness, he could not apply to the posts reserved for persons with disabilities in this selection process.In the examination held in 2008, the Petitioner secured 1110 out of 2300 marks. The Petitioner pleaded that the last candidate selected in the category reserved for persons with disabilities had secured only 991 marks out of 2300. The Petitioner, arguing that the definition of “person with disability” includes a person suffering from mental illness, instituted a Writ Petition in the Delhi High Court but the same was dismissed.
The Review Petition also came to be dismissed. However, during the pendency of the Review Petition, the 2016 Act came into force. Section 34(1)(d) of the Act refers to persons suffering from autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness. The Peitioner’s request to the Respondents was rejected on the ground that no changes could now be made to the selection process that had concluded in 2008. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner approached the High Court.
Reasoning
The Bench was of the view that no case was made out to grant the Petitioner relief based upon the marks secured by him in the 2008 examination. It was further noticed that, considering the provisions of the 1995 Act, the Delhi High Court found no legal infirmity in the selection process in which no posts were reserved for persons suffering from mental disability. “The grant of reliefs, as prayed for by the Petitioner in this Petition at this point in time, would lead to administrative chaos”, it added.
The Bench found that no posts were advertised for persons with mental illness and to appoint any person against the selection process of 2006-2008 would give rise to several complications regarding seniority, induction, etc. “Thirdly, once it was established that there was nothing wrong with the 2006-2008 selection process, the grant of such relief is also not warranted due to subsequent legislative changes. The impugned communications are justified in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Petitioner’s case was fairly and sympathetically considered, but the authorities quite correctly found it difficult to grant the Petitioner relief that he was seeking at this point of time”, it said.
“The Petitioner is already working in Group “C” under the Government of Maharashtra. The Petitioner’s zest in pursuing this matter before the Delhi High Court and this Court is to be appreciated. The legislative policy under the 1995 Act did not support reservations for those suffering from mental illness”, the Bench observed while dismissing the Petition.
Cause Title: Vishwas Haridas Jadhavar v. Union Of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:23528-DB)
Appearance
Appellant: Senior Advocate Sanjeev Kadam, Advocates Prashant Raul, Varsha Thorat, Suraj Mhadgut, Harsh Khot, Veera Shinde
Respondent: Advocates Anamika Malhotra, Mainak Adhikary