The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that job advertisements issued by authorities cannot go against existing laws. This came as a relief to candidates with physical disabilities who were denied reservation benefits for the Assistant Lineman post advertised by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC) in 2019.
Justice Jagmohan Bansal, while delivering the judgment, observed:
"There is no change in the legal position from 2013 to 2024. In the absence of change in legal position, there was no reason to deny benefit of reservation to persons with disability of one leg in 2019-2020 and grant in 2023."
The Court found the HSSC's stand to be arbitrary and inconsistent. It stated that the Commission failed to follow the guidelines under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act, 2016, and relevant government notifications. Instead of adopting a compassionate and inclusive approach, the respondent authority followed a rigid and harsh interpretation of the rules.
"The respondent has attempted to deny substantial benefit to persons who are unfortunately suffering from physical disabilities… Instead of adopting a pragmatic, compassionate and holistic approach, it has followed a pedantic and harsh approach."
The 2019 recruitment notification only reserved the Assistant Lineman post for candidates with hearing disabilities. A group of candidates with a disability of one leg challenged this move, stating that the notification was unfair and discriminatory.
The petitioners argued that if persons with one-leg disability were appointed in the 2023 selection, there was no reason they should have been excluded in 2019. The court agreed with this position, stating that a candidate cannot be barred from challenging discriminatory clauses in a job advertisement. The Court held such clauses as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to equality.
Justice Bansal noted:
"The respondent acting beyond its jurisdiction and contrary to statutory provisions has confined benefit of reservation to persons with disability of hard of hearing, whereas persons with disability of one leg are equally entitled for the post."
The Court relied on two important government notifications:
- The 2001 notification identified the Assistant Lineman post as suitable for persons with hearing disability.
- The 2013 notification, however, included persons with one-leg disability (OL) along with those with hearing disability (HH).
Despite this, the HSSC restricted the benefit to only hearing-impaired candidates in 2019. The Court found this move legally unsound and directed the authorities to reconsider the applications of all petitioners with one-leg disability.
However, the Court added a cautionary note:
“The benefit of this order shall be available only to present petitioners and it would not be available to any fence sitter. Otherwise, there would be no end of litigation and it may open Pandora’s Box.”
It also clarified that this decision would apply only to candidates with a one-leg disability and not to those with other types of benchmark disabilities.
Title: Vikram and others v. State of Haryana and others
Mr. Rajkapoor Malik, Advocate for the petitioner (in CWP-14773-2022 & CWP-8345-2024)
Mr. Ravinder Malik (Ravi), Advocate and Mr. Ritender Rathee, Advocate for the petitioner (in CWP-12898-2022)
Mr. Jasbir Mor, Advocate and Mr. Virender Gill, Advocate for the petitioner (in CWP Nos.13023, 15279 and 14301 of 2022)
Mr. Aazam Khan, Advocate for Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner (in CWP-1137-2023)
Ms. Anjali Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner (in CWP-12714-2022)
Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana. Ms. Nikita Goel, Advocate for respondents-UHBVN in CWP-12898-2022.
Mr. Udit Garg, Advocate for respondent No.2 in CWP- 14773-2022 & CWP-13023-2022 for respondent No.3 in CWP-12848-2022, CWP-23349-2022, CWP-14301-2022, CWP-1137-2023 and CWP-8345-2024.
Mr. Nikhil Lather, Advocate for Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, for the applicant in CM-11123-CWP-2024 in CWP-13023-2022.
