Reservation for Disabled Candidates Must Be Meaningful, Not Illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Calls for Relaxation of Selection Criteria for PwBD Candidates
Case Name: Sohan v. State of Haryana and Others; Devender Aggarwal v. State of Haryana and Others; Naveen Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others
Date of Judgment: 27 February 2026
Citation: CWP-34752-2025, CWP-37099-2025 and CWP-37156-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that reservation for persons with disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 must be accompanied by reasonable accommodation, including relaxation in selection criteria where necessary. Treating disabled candidates and able-bodied candidates identically in competitive recruitment may result in indirect discrimination and undermine substantive equality.
Summary: The High Court delivered a common judgment in three writ petitions arising from recruitment processes conducted by the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) for posts in the Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB). The petitions raised a common issue regarding denial of reservation benefits and relaxation of selection standards for candidates belonging to the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) category.
In the first petition, the petitioner challenged Advertisement No.04/2025 issued for recruitment to the post of Scientist-B. Although earlier recruitment had earmarked a post for persons with disabilities, the subsequent advertisement and its corrigendum despite increasing the number of posts from 5 to 18 did not provide any reservation for the PH (OH) category. The petitioner argued that the unfilled reserved post from the earlier recruitment should have been carried forward in accordance with statutory provisions and government instructions.
The second and third petitions concerned recruitment to the posts of Assistant Environmental Engineer. Two posts had been reserved for candidates with benchmark disabilities. However, the Commission introduced a requirement of securing minimum qualifying marks of 35% in the Subject Knowledge Test. None of the PwBD candidates could meet this threshold and consequently the reserved posts remained unfilled.
The petitioners argued that the qualifying criteria had effectively defeated the purpose of reservation for disabled candidates. They contended that the recruitment authority should have relaxed the minimum marks in accordance with the mandate of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and relevant government instructions.
The respondents, including the HPSC and the HSPCB, argued that the Commission was bound by the requisition sent by the department and could not independently create or modify reserved posts. They further contended that the qualifying marks were part of the recruitment scheme and that candidates who participated in the process without protest could not challenge the criteria after being unsuccessful.
The Court observed that the controversy raised broader constitutional questions regarding equality and substantive justice for persons with disabilities. Referring to constitutional provisions including Articles 14, 16 and 41, the Court emphasized that equality does not always mean identical treatment. Rather, substantive equality requires the State to remove structural barriers that prevent disadvantaged groups from competing on equal footing.
The Court examined the statutory scheme of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and noted that the Act requires the State to provide reasonable accommodation and ensure effective participation of persons with disabilities in public employment. Reservation of posts without corresponding accommodation in selection standards would render the statutory mandate meaningless.
Relying on recent Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Court held that applying identical qualifying criteria to disabled and able-bodied candidates may amount to indirect discrimination. The Court emphasized that recruitment standards must be interpreted in a manner that furthers the objective of inclusion rather than creating structural barriers that nullify reservation benefits.
The Court also observed that the respondent-department itself acknowledged that failure to include a reserved post for disabled candidates in the requisition was an inadvertent error. Moreover, the Court noted that none of the candidates from the PwBD category could qualify the examination because of the rigid minimum marks requirement, resulting in the reserved posts remaining vacant.
In this context, the Court held that reservation for disabled candidates must be meaningful and accompanied by appropriate relaxation of selection standards wherever necessary to ensure real participation and equality of opportunity.
Decision: The High Court held that reasonable accommodation and relaxation in qualifying standards may be required in recruitment processes involving persons with disabilities to achieve substantive equality under the Constitution and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The Court directed the authorities to reconsider the recruitment processes and ensure compliance with the statutory mandate regarding reservation and accommodation for disabled candidates.