Reservation in Promotion for Persons With Disabilities Is a Statutory Right; State Cannot Deny It Due to Absence of Rules: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Name: Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others
Date of Judgment: 25 March 2026
Citation: CWP-8688-2026
Bench: Justice Sandeep Moudgil
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that reservation in promotion for Persons with Disabilities is a statutory and enforceable right flowing from the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The Court ruled that absence of service rules or administrative instructions cannot defeat such entitlement and directed reconsideration of the petitioner’s promotional claims under the PwD quota with consequential benefits.
Summary: The petitioner, a Forest Department employee suffering from haemophilia constituting a benchmark disability, approached the High Court challenging denial of reservation in promotion under the PwD quota and assailing the order dated 11.03.2026 reverting him from the post of Deputy Forest Ranger.
The petitioner had initially been appointed as Forest Guard on compassionate grounds in 1996 after the death of his father. Although he claimed entitlement to appointment as Forester from the very beginning, his service trajectory remained affected by subsequent litigation and administrative orders. Despite statutory provisions protecting persons with disabilities, the petitioner was never considered for promotion under the reserved PwD quota and was promoted only on the basis of general seniority.
The petitioner relied upon representations submitted in 2019 and 2026 as well as Haryana Government instructions dated 11.07.2023 which recognized retrospective implementation of reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities from 01.01.1996. It was argued that he ought to have been considered for promotion to the posts of Forester, Deputy Forest Ranger and Forest Ranger from the dates he became eligible.
Before the Court, the petitioner contended that denial of reservation in promotion violated Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 and Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Reliance was placed upon Supreme Court judgments in Rajeev Kumar Gupta v. Union of India, Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka and State of Kerala v. Leesamma Joseph to argue that reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities is a statutory right that cannot be defeated by executive inaction or absence of rules.
The State opposed the petition by contending that reservation in promotion required prior identification of posts and framing of rules and could not be applied retrospectively. It was further argued that reopening past promotions would disturb settled seniority and create administrative complications.
The High Court undertook an extensive examination of disability rights jurisprudence and observed that the legal framework had evolved from a paternalistic approach to one based on substantive equality and enforceable entitlements. The Court emphasized that equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution obligates the State to dismantle structural barriers faced by persons with disabilities.
Relying heavily upon Rajeev Kumar Gupta v. Union of India, the Court held that once posts are identified as suitable for persons with disabilities, reservation must extend irrespective of the mode of recruitment, including promotions. The Court further reiterated that denial of promotional avenues would frustrate the very purpose of disability legislation and perpetuate stagnation of disabled employees at lower levels.
The Court noted that haemophilia is specifically recognized as a benchmark disability under the 2016 Act and that the State had failed to place on record any notification exempting the relevant posts from the operation of disability reservation provisions. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to consideration for promotion under the 3% reservation regime under the 1995 Act and the 4% reservation regime under the 2016 Act from the relevant dates of eligibility.
Rejecting the State’s defence regarding absence of rules, the Court relied upon State of Kerala v. Leesamma Joseph to hold that statutory rights cannot be defeated by administrative inaction. The Court also rejected arguments regarding inconvenience and disturbance of seniority, observing that notional promotions and creation of supernumerary posts are recognized mechanisms to balance equities.
The High Court further criticized the State for compelling disabled employees to litigate for rights already recognized by law, observing that a beneficial legislation intended to protect dignity and equality cannot be reduced to a “promise perpetually deferred.”
Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated 11.03.2026 to the extent it failed to consider the petitioner’s statutory entitlement to reservation in promotion. The respondents were directed to reconsider the petitioner’s case for promotion under the PwD quota from the dates of eligibility and grant notional promotions with consequential benefits and arrears carrying interest at 6% per annum.