In a writ petition filed before the Jharkhand High Court seeking a direction upon the respondent authorities to show cause as to under what authority and circumstances the petitioner was not considered for employment against the advertised post of Chowkidar despite fulfilling the criteria under the Persons with Disabilities Category, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Deepak Roshan held that the respondents’ action was not sustainable in law and directed the petitioner’s appointment as Chowkidar under the PwD category, since seats in that category were still vacant.
The petitioner, having a locomotive disability, applied for the post of Chowkidar under an advertisement issued in the District of Dumka for 328 posts, of which 4% were reserved for PwD candidates. She qualified the written examination held on 05-10-2025 and was called for the physical test. Although she was a PwD candidate, she was directed to appear in the physical running test along with all regular candidates, and no additional time was allotted to her. She completed the run in 10 minutes and 3 seconds, which was 3 seconds beyond the qualifying time of 10 minutes, and therefore, was not selected.
Out of 13 seats reserved for the PwD category, only 2 candidates were selected and 11 seats remained vacant. The respondents kept her representation pending. Aggrieved, the present petition was filed.
The petitioner submitted that she was made to compete with regular candidates without any separate time, and that a PwD candidate could not be disqualified for only 3 seconds. She relied on Section 2(y) of the 2016 Act, which defined reasonable accommodation as necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments, without imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, to ensure persons with disabilities enjoyed rights equally with others.
The State submitted that the merit list was prepared on the basis of the written test, physical test and work experience, and that the petitioner secured less than the cut-off marks. It was argued that for women, 20 marks were fixed for completing the run within 8 minutes and 10 marks for completing it within 10 minutes, after which candidates were rejected. It was also submitted that neither the Chowkidar Cadre Rules, 2015 nor the 2018 resolution provided any exemption for PwD candidates.
Referring to reasonable accommodation defined under Section 2(y), the Court found that a reasonable accommodation meant necessary and appropriate modifications, without imposing a disproportionate or undue burden in a particular case, to ensure the enjoyment or exercise of rights equally to persons with disabilities. The Court noted that no such reasonable accommodation had been provided to the petitioner in the present case in spite of the legal provisions laid down in The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
The Court referred to Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission 2021 5 SCC 370, and stated that the principle of reasonable accommodation imposed a positive obligation on the State to provide additional support to persons with disabilities to facilitate their full and effective participation. Because the petitioner qualified the written test and failed the running test by only 3 seconds due to the absence of the accommodation that was necessary under the Act, the Court held that the disqualification could not stand.
The petitioner was held to be entitled for appointment to the post of Chowkidar as seats under the said category were still vacant. Respondent no. 3, the Deputy Collector (Establishment), Dumka, was directed to take appropriate steps and issue an appointment letter to the petitioner within eight weeks. Thus, the petition was allowed.
