The High Court of Chhattisgarh has delivered a significant ruling affirming the State Government’s authority under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), to interchange reserved vacancies among different disability categories based on the nature of the job. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, dismissed a writ appeal, holding that the State’s decision to not reserve the post of Assistant Professor in Commerce for visually handicapped candidates, while providing it for other disability categories, was not illegal.
Background of the Case
The appeal was filed by Mr. Saroj Kshemanidhi, a visually handicapped candidate, challenging a Single Judge order from June 9, 2025. The case stemmed from a 2019 advertisement by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) for Assistant Professor posts. Mr. Kshemanidhi, after successfully clearing the written exam for the Commerce subject but failing to make the final selection list, contested the advertisement for not providing a 2% reservation for blind and low-vision candidates in that faculty. He argued this was a departure from a previous 2014 recruitment drive and a violation of his rights.
Arguments of the Parties
Appearing in person, Mr. Kshemanidhi contended that the exclusion was arbitrary and violated fundamental rights under Article 16(1) of the Constitution.
The State of Chhattisgarh, represented by Additional Advocate General Mr. Y. S. Thakur, argued that the identification of posts for reservation is the employer’s prerogative. The State had determined that the duties of an Assistant Professor in Commerce, which involve “a lot of writing of numerals and figures,” were unsuitable for visually handicapped persons. Consequently, the reservation for that post was allocated to candidates in the OA (One Arm) and OL (One Leg) categories. The State also argued that since Mr. Kshemanidhi participated in the selection process without protest, he was estopped from challenging it later.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Division Bench centered its analysis on Section 34 of the RPwD Act, 2016. The Court highlighted the proviso to this section, which explicitly allows the “appropriate Government” to interchange vacancies among the five specified disability categories if the nature of the work in an establishment makes a post unsuitable for a particular category.
The Court found that the State Government acted within this statutory power. The judgment observed:
“The proviso to Section 34 of the Act of 2016 provides to interchange the post within 5 categories with the prior approval of the appropriate Government. The State Government taking into consideration the difficulty likely to be faced by the VH (Visually Handicapped or Visually Impaired) candidate has already granted reservation for commerce faculty in OA (one Arm) and OL (one Leg) category. …Therefore, the action of the respondent No. 2 in not providing reservation for persons with VH disability cannot be found faulty or illegal…”
The bench also upheld the principle of estoppel by citing the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Madan Lal v. State of Jammu & Kashmir. It reiterated the settled law that a candidate who takes a “calculated chance” by participating in a selection process cannot subsequently challenge its fairness upon receiving an unfavourable result.
“It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair,” the Court quoted.
Decision
In conclusion, the High Court found no illegality or jurisdictional error in the earlier dismissal of the writ petition. It held that the State was empowered by the RPwD Act to make a reasoned decision on the suitability of posts for different disability categories. The writ appeal was dismissed as being “devoid of merit.”
