Click the Play button to listen to article

The Jharkhand HC has held that the absence of a provision for reasonable accommodation in recruitment rules cannot override the statutory rights of persons with disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The Court directed the appointment of a woman candidate with a locomotor disability who missed the qualifying time in a physical running test by just three seconds after being required to compete without any accommodation.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Deepak Roshan held that the principle of reasonable accommodation imposes a positive obligation on the State to provide additional support to persons with disabilities to facilitate their full and effective participation in society.

The case concerned Advertisement No. 01 of 2025, issued for recruitment to 328 Chowkidar posts in Dumka district, Jharkhand, of which 4% were reserved for persons with disabilities (PwD). The petitioner, Juthika Pal, who had a locomotor disability, applied for the post and appeared in the written examination on October 5, 2025. After qualifying, she was called for the physical test scheduled between November 4 and 6, 2025.

Despite belonging to the PwD category, she was required to participate in the running test alongside other candidates without being granted additional time or any other reasonable accommodation. She completed the running test in 10 minutes and 3 seconds, exceeding the prescribed time limit of 10 minutes by just three seconds. Consequently, her name did not appear in the provisional merit list.

The petitioner stated that although 13 posts were reserved for PwD candidates, only two candidates had been selected, leaving 11 posts vacant. She also submitted a representation seeking consideration for appointment, which remained pending.

Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that disqualifying her for exceeding the prescribed time limit by three seconds, without providing reasonable accommodation, was arbitrary and contrary to Section 2(y) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

The respondents defended the decision on the ground that neither the applicable appointment rules nor the State Government's 2018 notification provided for relaxation of time in the physical running test.

Examining the matter, the High Court noted that the petitioner had qualified the written examination and that it was undisputed that she had been required to compete with other candidates without any additional time or accommodation.

The Bench referred to Section 20(1) and (2) of the 2016 Act, which prohibit discrimination against persons with disabilities in government employment and require government establishments to provide reasonable accommodation and an appropriate barrier-free and conducive environment. Rejecting the State's contention that accommodation could not be provided because the recruitment rules contained no such provision, the Court observed:

“The contention of the respondents that since neither the appointment Rules; nor the notification of 2018 issued by the State of Jharkhand provides for such reasonable accommodation, the petitioner was not provided with any such accommodation; is not tenable in the eyes of law as no notification or rules can go beyond the specific statutory provision laid down in an Act enacted by the parliament.”

The Court further explained that Section 2(y) defines reasonable accommodation as necessary and appropriate modifications and adjustments, without imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, to enable persons with disabilities to enjoy and exercise their rights equally with others. It held that the principle of reasonable accommodation creates a positive obligation on the State to provide additional support to persons with disabilities.

The Bench found that no such accommodation had been provided to the petitioner during the running test, rendering the respondents' action legally unsustainable. The Court also noted that the petitioner had successfully cleared the written examination and had failed the physical test by only three seconds in circumstances where reasonable accommodation had not been provided.

Accordingly, the High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to appointment to the post of Chowkidar under the PwD category, particularly since seats reserved for that category remained vacant.

Appearance:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Shubham Mishra, Advocate; Mr. Kazi Asif Equbal, Advocate; Mr. Gyandev Raj, Advocate

For the Respondent-State: Mr. A.K. Yadav, Senior Standing Counsel-I


Tags: