Relaxation In Selection Criteria For PwD Candidates Not Concession, But Constitutional Obligation: P&H HC Directs States To Frame Norms

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that relaxation in selection criteria for persons with disabilities is a constitutional obligation and not a mere concession. The Court observed that failure to provide such relaxation defeats the mandate of substantive equality under the Constitution and renders the statutory protections under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act ineffective.Justice Harpreet Singh Brar was hearing a batch of writ petitions concerning recruitment to posts of Scientist-B and Assistant Environmental Engineer in the Haryana State Pollution Control Board, where the petitioners, persons with disabilities, challenged the absence of reservation and denial of relaxation in qualifying criteria. The petitioners contended that despite statutory provisions and government instructions requiring reservation and relaxation, no posts were earmarked in one recruitment and in another, uniform qualifying marks were applied, resulting in all candidates from the disabled category being excluded from further stages of selection.The Court examined the constitutional scheme of equality and noted that the Preamble to the Constitution makes an enduring promise of social justice and equality of status and opportunity to all its citizens; the disadvantages faced by persons with disabilities are not limited to existence of physical or mental impairments, but are also rooted in social and institutional barriers that restrict their equal participation in everyday life.Referring to the statutory framework under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, the Court held that the concept of reasonable accommodation requires relaxation of selection criteria where necessary to ensure substantive equality. It noted that the reservation of posts would be rendered meaningless if candidates from the disabled category are subjected to the same standards without any relaxation.The Court found that in the present cases, no relaxation had been granted at any stage, which was contrary to both constitutional guarantees and statutory intent. It emphasised that the specific instructions were issued by the employer-State, as well as the Union of India, advocating for reasonable accommodations, which were superseded without providing any explanation. The Court observed that providing differential treatment to persons with disabilities to remove disadvantage does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution but rather furthers them. It categorically held that relaxation in selection criteria is necessary to ensure meaningful implementation of the law relating to persons with disabilities.“… the relaxation in selection criteria for persons with disabilities is not a concession but a constitutional obligation to achieve substantive equality in furtherance of Article 14, 16, 21 of the Constitution and the statutory framework of the RPWD Act,” the Court observed. Accordingly, the Court allowed the petitions and directed the Chief Secretary of Haryana to constitute a Committee to determine the extent of relaxation in selection criteria for persons with disabilities and to finalise norms within a stipulated time. Additionally, the Chief Secretaries of Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh were directed to formulate clear instructions for granting such relaxations in future recruitment processes and to ensure compliance through submission of reports.Case Title: Sohan vs. The State of Haryana & Ors., and connected matters [CWP-34752-2023 (O&M) and connected cases]Click Here To Read/Download Order

Relaxation In Selection Criteria For PwD Candidates Not Concession, But Constitutional Obligation: P&H HC Directs States To Frame Norms

Saksham Vaishya

Tags