Rajasthan High Court Directs State To Appoint Petitioner With 90% Hearing Impairment As Safai Karamchari After Wrongful Exclusion From Pwd Category
The Court said it saw no reason why the Petitioner’s claim of being treated as physically handicapped could not be accepted, especially since his disability was otherwise not disputed.
The Rajasthan High Court directed the State to appoint the Petitioner for the post of Safai Karamchari, noting that due to an error, his candidature was wrongly considered under the Scheduled Caste (SC) category instead of the Physically Handicapped category, despite him having a 90% hearing impairment.
A Single Bench of Justice Arun Monga stated, “Needless to say, petitioner shall be accorded seniority and notional benefits with effect from the same date when the other candidates were appointed…”
The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Vikram Sharma, while Advocate Anurag Shukla appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Respondent published an advertisement for recruiting Safai Karamcharis in 184 municipalities across Rajasthan. According to the advertisement, individuals who are bona fide residents of Rajasthan with one year of experience were eligible. Reservations were allotted for SC, ST, OBC, Person with Disability (PwD), women, widows, and divorced women. The selection process was to be conducted through a lottery system under the Rajasthan Nagar Palika (Safai Karamchari Seva) Niyam, 2012.
The Petitioner, an eligible bona fide resident of Udaipur, applied under the PwD category due to 90% hearing impairment and the SC category. However, his name was erroneously recorded only under SC in the official checklist, and he was considered only in the SC lottery, where he was not selected, despite 35 reserved PwD posts and there being only 10 applications.
Upon learning of the error, the Petitioner submitted a representation to the Nagar Nigam, who acknowledged the mistake and wrote to the Director Cum Joint Secretary, Department of Local Self-Government (Department), and sought clarifications regarding his PwD application, the responsible party, and actions taken. In its reply the Department confirmed a software error misclassified his name, and an inquiry committee was formed to investigate the matter. Despite repeated requests and official correspondence, no corrective action was taken. A legal notice was also sent, but no response was received.
The Petitioner, therefore, approached the High Court for the issuance of directions to the Respondents to consider his candidature under the reserve category of Physically Disabled Person (Handicapped).
Reasoning of the Court
The Court noted that the Respondents admitted on oath that due to their mistake, the Petitioner's candidature was not considered in the Physically Handicapped category but was instead treated under the SC category, where he was not selected in the draw of lots.
The Court stated, “I see no reason why the petitioner’s claim of being treated as physically handicapped can not be accepted, especially when his disability is otherwise not disputed. Furthermore, special provisions are created under Sections 32 and 33 of the Disabilities Act, 1995.”
The Court allowed the petition and directed the Respondents to accept the appointment of the Petitioner as Safai Karamchari in the Physically handicapped category subject to verification of documents the same, and further directed that the Petitioner be accorded the same benefit of appointment, within a period of 30 days of him approaching the Respondent with a copy of this order.
While concluding, the Bench said, “In the parting, I may hasten to add here that this Court is conscious of the fact that the petitioner did not participate in the draw of lots, and therefore, it may appear to be unfair that without participating in the draw of lots, he is being given benefit by virtue of the mandamus of this Court of being appointed on the post. Such are the vagaries of the litigation that sometimes, it results in fortuitous benefits in favour of the candidates as is the case herein, coupled with the fact that petitioner deserves humanitarian outlook being a disabled person (90% hearing impairment) as is borne out from his medical certificate. In any case, it transpires that the number of posts reserved in Physically Handicapped category out numbered the actual number of Physically Handicapped applicants.”
Cause Title: Pankaj Vasita v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Neutral Citation No: 2025:RJ-JD:13001)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Vikram Sharma, Jhamak Nagda
Respondents: Advocate Anurag Shukla
