Unfilled Vacancy U/S 36 PwD Act 1995 Attracts Statutory Carry-Forward Regime & Doesn’t Make Every Available Candidate Suitable: Delhi High Court

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking appointment of his son as well as directions concerning the use of interviews, GD and GT in the recruitment of persons with disabilities and the manner in which reserved vacancies are to be filled.

The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held, “Section 36 of the 1995 PwD Act expressly contemplates that a reserved vacancy could remain unfilled for want of a suitable candidate and provides for its carryforward. An unfilled vacancy, therefore, attracts the statutory carry-forward regime; it does not make every available candidate suitable.”

“One observation is necessary. The statutory reservation for PwDs is not satisfied merely by identifying posts and mechanically carrying vacancies forward from year to year. National Federation of the Blind and Rajeev Kumar Gupta emphasise the obligation to give meaningful effect to the reservation framework. Public employers must periodically examine whether their standards and processes are needlessly excluding persons with disabilities and must use the powers of relaxation available to them where circumstances justify it. IOCL’s 2018 exercise is itself an example of such review. The obligation to make reservation effective, however, is not the same thing as an individual right to appointment notwithstanding failure to meet the standard which lawfully governs the selection”, it added.

Advocates Abiha Zaidi represented the Petitioner while Advocate V.N. Koura represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

In both cases, the petitioner’s son, Bhagyadeep Ashwinbhai Mehta, was shortlisted based on his GATE score and proceeded to the subsequent stages of the selection process. He was, however, not selected. The petitioner claimed that once a post is identified as suitable for a particular disability and a suitable candidate with that disability is available, the candidate cannot be denied appointment through further stages such as interview, Group Discussion (GD) or Group Task (GT), followed by carrying forward of the vacancy.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, explained that the identification of a post establishes that the post is suitable for persons with the specified disability and it does not dispense with an assessment of whether an individual candidate meets the prescribed standard for appointment. The Bench stated that Clause 22 of the DoPT Office Memorandum dated December 29, 2005 doesnot require the employer to keep lowering an already relaxed standard merely because a reserved vacancy remains unfilled.

Reference was made to Section 36 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 which contemplates a reserved vacancy remaining unfilled where a suitable PwD is not available and provides for its carry forward. The Bench further noted that the IOCL had already relaxed the general composite standard from 45% to 40% for PwD candidates. Bhagyadeep’s composite score was 31.893 and although he cleared the separate GD/GT and interview thresholds, he did not meet the composite standard for inclusion in the final merit list.

The Bench stated that Bhagyadeep did not meet the separate qualifying requirement in GD/GT even in 2018 recruitment and, consequently, could not avail of the 30% composite benchmark introduced for that year. “His participation in the 2018 exercise therefore neither affects the validity of the 40% benchmark applicable in 2014 nor gives him any right to claim the benefit of the subsequent 30% relaxation in the 2014 selection”, it mentioned.

The Bench clarified that there is no provision in the applicable ONGC recruitment framework for the award of a grace mark. The Bench was of the view that the non-joining of an empanelled candidate does not create such a power and if a reserved vacancy remained unfilled, Section 34 of the 2016 RPwD Act provides for its treatment in accordance with the statutory carry-forward mechanism. “It did not, however, require the marks secured by a candidate to be altered after the selection so as to bring him within the prescribed qualifying standard”, it added.

Dealing with the other prayers seeking directions to Government Establishments/PSUs concerning the manner in which vacancies are to be filled, as well as the creation of a Special Employment Exchange or a Centralised Admission Committee and the appointment of an independent medical authority, the Bench clarified, “These are matters of general policy and institutional arrangement extending beyond the two recruitment exercises in question. No occasion therefore arises to issue such directions in the present proceedings.”

Thus, with such findings and observations, the Bench dismissed the Petition.

Cause Title: Ashwin Jawaharlal Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:8075)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Abiha Zaidi, Pritam Raman Giriya, Aryan S., Rohit Rampuriya

Respondent: Advocates V.N. Koura, Aditya Sharma, Nirbhay Narain Singh, Paramjeet Benipal,Vikrant Nilesh Goyal, Inderjeet Singh Kunal Dixit, Naman Saraswat, Kanav Singhal

Click here to read/download Order