Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Denial of Pharmacist Appointment to 50% Locomotor Disabled Candidate

Court rules that specific physical requirements for the role cannot be compromised, despite disability certificate.

In a significant judgment, the Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the denial of an appointment to Sajil Kumar, a candidate with 50% locomotor disability, for the post of Pharmacist (Allopathy) in the state's health department. The court emphasized that the specific physical requirements for the role, as outlined in government notifications, were crucial in determining the suitability for the position, thereby justifying the decision to not appoint the petitioner.

The petitioner, Sajil Kumar, had sought a writ of mandamus for his appointment under the Scheduled Caste category with Persons with Disabilities (PWD) designation after being denied the post due to his inability to meet the physical requirements of standing and walking, as determined by the Medical Board. Despite having a disability certificate confirming his 50% locomotor disability, the court found that the denial of the appointment was justified based on the expert opinion of the Medical Board and the specific physical demands of the pharmacist role.

The court referred to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and existing government notifications that identify specific disabilities suitable for various posts. The court noted that while the appointment of persons with disabilities should be handled sensitively, the specific nature of duties required for a pharmacist, such as physical exertion and mobility, could not be compromised.

In distinguishing this case from a Supreme Court judgment on the recruitment of visually impaired individuals in judicial services, the High Court observed that the duties of a pharmacist, unlike those of a judge, involve significant physical movement and cannot be effectively performed with the same accommodations.

The judgment emphasized that government notifications issued under Sections 33 and 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, clearly define the physical requirements for the post of pharmacist, and these have not been challenged in the current proceedings.

The petition was consequently dismissed, reaffirming the necessity of meeting specific physical criteria for certain roles, even within the framework of disability rights.

Bottom Line:

Rights of Persons with Disabilities - Denial of appointment based on physical requirements for the post of Pharmacist upheld when the candidate was found medically unfit for the specific duties required, as per government notification.

Statutory provision(s): Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 Sections 33, 34

Sajil Kumar v. State of H.P., (Himachal Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2805358