Madhya Pradesh High Court Orders Appointment Of Candidate With 40% Locomotor Disability; Says Expiry Of Select List Cannot Defeat His Right

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the State Government to appoint the petitioner, certified as having 40% permanent locomotor disability, observing that he was denied appointment due to the cumbersome procedure adopted by the State and therefore rejecting his candidature merely because the selection list has expired would be unreasonable.

The bench of Justice Ashish Shroti observed;

"the delay occurred because of cumbersome procedure adopted by respondents and the delay in submitting report by the Medical Board. This has been discussed in preceding paragraphs. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be blamed for the delay. Thus, rejecting his candidature only because the select list has expired during the process, would be unreasonable for the petitioner".

The bench further directed;

"In view of the discussion made above, since there is no delay on the part of the petitioner, merely because the validity of the select list has expired (a few days before submission of his report by Medical Board), he cannot be denied appointment on the post. Since, the petitioner has already been certified to be suffering from 40% permanent locomotor disability and is thus eligible for appointment, the respondents are directed to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner within a period of 60 days from the date of submission of certified copy of this order".

The petitioner, certified as having 40% permanent locomotor disability, had applied under the OBC/LD category for the Uchch Madhyamik Shikshak Recruitment Examination-2023. After clearing the exam, he received a provisional selection order on October 16, 2024, posting him to the Government Higher Secondary School of Excellence No. 1, Bhind.

As per the recruitment rules, the selected candidates were required to undergo disability verification by the District or Divisional Medical Board before issuance of final appointment orders. The petitioner presented his documents to the District Education Officer on June 21, 2024 and subseuqntly appeared before the Medical Board on November 26, 2024, as instructed.

Although the Medical Board submitted a report on January 24, 2025, confirming 40% locomotor disability, it failed to specify whether the disability was permanent or temporary. This omission triggered a long series of communications between the DEO, the Hospital and the District Medical Board.

The District Medical Board at Bhind certified the disability as permanent on June 10, 2025, but the Directorate of Public Instructions insisted on receiving this verification only from the original examining Medical Board at the Hospital. The hospital eventually sent its final report on September 1, 2025, after the validity of the select list had already expired on August 20, 2025.

Citing this expiry, the authorities refused to issue the petitioner's appointment order.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that he appeared for every verification and medical examination on time. Further, it was argued that the delay was entirely due to the respondent's insistence on repeated medical verification. The other candidates whose disability reports were submitted earlier had already been appointed.

The counsel for the State contended that since the select list expired on August 20, 2025, and the petitioner's medical report was received on September 1, 2025, he could not be appointed. They also argued that selection does not automatically confer a right to appointment.

The bench noted that the petitioner was eligible to be appointed to the post. But since the other disability certificates were found forged in other districts, a general direction was issued for the verification of disability certificates of all selected candidates. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared in the office of the District Education Officer on June 21, 2024.

The bench also noted that the petitioner made himself available for his medical examination as and when asked for. The bench further noted that the delay was not only on the part of the petitioner but also occurred because of the procedure adopted by the respondents for verification of the petitioner's disability. The petitioner could not be held responsible for the delay in his medical examination and consequent expiry of this select list.

Thus, the bench, while allowing the petition, held that there was no delay on the part of the petitioner, merely because the validity of the select list had expired; he cannot be denied appointment to the post. Since the petitioner had already been certified to be suffering from 40% permanent locomotor disability and was eligible for appointment, the respondents are directed to issue an appointment order in favour of the petitioner within 60 days.

Case Title: Sonu Singh Narwariya v State of Madhya Pradesh [WP-38868-2025]

For Petitioner: Advocate Prashant Singh Kaurav

For State: Government Advocate Sohit Mishra

Click here to read/download the Order