State Can Order Reassessment Of Disability Certificates Of Employees Appointed Under PwD Quota To Prevent Fraudulent Claims: Rajasthan HC

The Rajasthan High Court rejects a bunch of petitions, challenging the State's order of compulsory reassessment of benchmark disabilities of persons who, during the last 5 years or more, were employed under the PwD category, opining that it was the State's duty to ensure that reservation policies were implemented in a legal and transparent manner, ensuring equality and fairness. “A humane and inclusive approach, as indicated hereinabove, has to be adopted, but at the same time fraudulent acts must be prevented at all costs so as to implement the law in true spirit. The system is inclusive, and inclusivity can be ensured only when policies are implemented in letter and spirit, with the aim of extending benefits to the last person in the queue.”Justice Ashok Kumar Jain was hearing the challenge against the administrative order issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, dated August 28, 2025, after certain irregularities were found during assessment of employees appointed against the posts reserved for PwD. It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that the disability certificate issued to a person in accordance with the process prescribed under the RPWD Act 2016 was binding and conclusive and the State had no authority to raise doubt on the same. Further, it was argued that the action of the State were arbitrary and denying equal opportunity to the petitioners, thereby violating their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16 and 21. It was also submitted that there was a violation of the doctrine of reasonable accommodation. After hearing the contentions, the Court opined that the State was competent to order re-assessment. It was highlighted that there was no provision in the 2016 Act which was sufficient to conclude that once a certificate was issued, it was binding for all purposes. The Court pointed out that the provisions of the 2016 Act provided for punishment for such individual who availed any benefits under the Act by using a fake or false certificate. In this light it was held that the legislature was conscious of this possibility despite prescribing a process for issuing a disability certificate. Furthermore, the Court opined that there was no violation of fundamental rights since the State was duty-bound to follow the fundamental tenets like transparency, equality and fairness, while making public appointments. It was held that when there were large number of appointment, it was not possible to segregate who played the fraud. Hence, a general order was applicable to all appointees. “…since public posts and public funds are involved, it is the duty of the Government to give effect to constitutional provisions by preventing misuse and fraudulent claims.”Lastly, the Court observed that to claim violation of the principle of reasonable accommodation provided under Section 3(5) of the 2016 Act, it had to be established that the directions by the State lacked good faith or violated principle of a unified approach, and further that undue hardship was faced during reassessment. “If the State Government after every change of Government pursue any employee to undergo reassessment multiple times then only the employee has a right to challenge the decision of the Government on the ground that the action of the Government is violative of basic principles…but the decision of the Government to examine or reassess the disability of the petitioner(s) neither violate any statutory provision nor fundamental right.”The Court held that the State was under a constitutional obligation to provide equal protection under Article 14 and 16, and was also bound by principle of reasonable accommodation. However, at the same time, it was also duty bound to prevent misuse of the 2016 Act aimed at usurping employment opportunities for PwDs. “Thus, the State or the Government has to re Examine the veracity of the claim made by any individual by submitting a certificate in support of such claim. The intention of the State, is to ensure that the right and eligible person is appointed to the post reserved for persons with disabilities.”In this background, the State order was upheld, and the petitions were disposed of. Title: Ramprakash Kahrlwa v the Director, Elementary Education & Ors, and other connected petitions Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 84Click Here To Read/Download Order

State Can Order Reassessment Of Disability Certificates Of Employees Appointed Under PwD Quota To Prevent Fraudulent Claims: Rajasthan HC

Nupur Agrawal

Tags