"Failed To Ensure Reasonable Accommodation": J&K High Court Overturns AAI's Cancellation Of Visually Impaired Law Graduate's Candidature For Job

Justice Javed Iqbal Wani, while delivering the verdict directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's case in light of Section 3(5) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the Supreme Court's ruling in Vikash Kumar v. UPSC, 2021.

Calling our the departure made by the AAI from the established principles of law concerning the Rights of persons with disabilities Justice Wani observed,

“… Since the respondents have failed to advert to the aforesaid provisions of Section 3(5) supra qua the “reasonable accommodation” in the case of the petitioner, and cancelled the candidature of the petitioner after having been entertained against the post in question and subjecting her to the process of selection thereof, the respondents cannot, but said to have acted arbitrarily, unreasonably, unfairly and in breach and violation of the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment of Vikash Kumar (Supra), while essentially having brushed aside the said provisions of Section 3 (5)”

In the instant case the petitioner, Shivani Misri, a blind woman with 100% visual disability, a highly accomplished academic with degrees in B.A. LL.B from the University of Jammu and LL.M from the University of Punjab had applied for 18 posts of Junior Executive (Law), including three posts reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities (under categories of blindness and low vision), wherein she applied under the reserved category.

After successfully clearing the computer-based test, during the document verification stage, although she submitted the required undertaking and certificates confirming her disability, the AAI raised concerns regarding the functional requirements of the post. On May 24, 2024, her result was withheld and her subsequent reassessment concluded she was “incapable” of fulfilling job requirements such as “seeing, reading, and writing,” and her candidature was cancelled.

Aggrieved, Shivani approached the High Court, challenging both the disqualification and the advertisement, leading to the present writ petition.

Court's Observations:

Justice Wani began his analysis by referring to the statutory definitions of "persons with disability" and "persons with benchmark disability" under Sections 2(s) and 2(r) of the 2016 Act. He also relied heavily on the Supreme Court's judgment in Vikash Kumar Judgment which delineated the legal distinction between different types of disabilities and emphasized the need for reasonable accommodation.

Citing Section 3(5) of the Act, which mandates that “the appropriate Government shall take necessary steps to ensure reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities,” the Court observed that the principle of reasonable accommodation imposes a positive obligation on the State and private parties to enable effective participation of disabled persons in society.

Referring to Vikas Kumar, the Court highlighted,

“For a person with disability, the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights to equality, the six freedoms and the right to life under Article 21 will ring hollow if they are not given this additionalsupport……Reasonable accommodation is the instrumentality are an obligation as a society to enable the disabled to enjoy the constitutional guarantee of equality and non-discrimination.”

Turning to the facts of the case, Justice Wani noted that the respondents had clearly earmarked posts for both “blind” and “low vision” candidates in the advertisement, and that Shivani had gone through the entire selection process before her candidature was arbitrarily cancelled.

The Court found that AAI had “overlooked the provisions of Section 3(5)” and the law laid down in Vikash Kumar, acting in an “arbitrary, unreasonable, and unfair” manner. It held that the authorities had brushed aside their duty to provide reasonable accommodation by citing functional requirements of “seeing, reading, and writing,” despite having advertised the post for visually impaired candidates.

“Since the respondents have failed to advert to the aforesaid provisions of Section 3(5)... they cannot but be said to have acted arbitrarily, unreasonably, unfairly and in breach and violation of the principles of law,” the Court ruled.

Allowing the petition, the High Court quashed the impugned communication that cancelled Shivani's candidature. It directed the respondents to “revisit and reconsider” her case in light of the legal provisions and complete the process within six weeks.

MR Nikhil Padha, Advocate appeared for the petitioner, Mr. Inderjeet Gupta, Advocate represented the Respondents

Case Title: Shivani Misri Vs Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 182

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment