The Jharkhand High Court has directed the registration of a PIL concerning ongoing and future selection processes in which disability certificates in a particular format are mandated, particularly as per a notification dated April 3, 2018.

The Court held that the incidental benefits that the Petitioner might derive as a member of the class that cannot always easily approach the Courts of law are not a good enough ground to decline to entertain a PIL. The Court entertained the PIL despite it being a service matter.

In this matter, resolution No. 2249 dated April 3, 2018, was alleged to be ultra vires the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016 and the rules made thereunder.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar held, “The incidental benefits that the Petitioner might derive as a member of the class that cannot always easily approach the Courts of law are not a good enough ground to decline to entertain this petition as a PIL.”

"Therefore, upon a holistic consideration, we direct the registration of this petition as a Public Interest Litigation”, it added.

Advocate Atulaya Shresth represented the Petition, while AC To Attorney General Piyush Chitresh represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner, in her individual capacity, had already instituted a Petition challenging a concluded selection in which she was not selected for failure to furnish a disability certificate in the format referred to in the notification dated April 3, 2018. However, the petitioner’s case was that the PIL concerns ongoing and future selection processes in which disability certificates are required, as per the notification dated April 3, 2018.

Arguments

It was the case of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission that, in service matters or in challenges to the vires of statutory provisions, PILs are not normally entertained. It was their case that the petitioner, in her individual capacity, had already instituted a Petition and thus the instant petition may not be entertained as a Public Interest Litigation.

Reasoning

The Bench was of the view that although the High Court does not entertain Public Interest Litigations in service matters or address issues of validity of statutory provisions, this was a case involving the rights of persons with disabilities. As per the Bench, such issues need to be addressed with enhanced sensitivity. This was not a case where the vires of a statutory provision was being challenged, but resolution no. 2249 dated April 3, 2018, was alleged to be ultra vires the 2016 Act and the rules made thereunder.

The Bench opined that the issue raised was also important from the perspective of persons with disabilities, and some clarity would help persons with disabilities understand their position. Upon a holistic consideration, the Bench directed the registration of the petition as a Public Interest Litigation.

Cause Title: Vaishnavi v. The State of Jharkhand and Others ( Case No.: W.P. (Filing) No. 13772 of 2025)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Atulaya Shresth

Respondent: AC To Attorney General Piyush Chitresh, Advocates Sanjoy Piprawall, Prince Kumar, Rakesh Ranjan, Jay Prakash

Click here to read/download Order


Jharkhand High CourtJustice M.S SonakJustice Rajesh Shankar

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.