Court holds that reservation for persons with disabilities does not guarantee appointment unless the candidate meets the prescribed selection standards; unfilled reserved vacancies may be carried forward.
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking appointment of a hearing-impaired candidate in recruitment exercises conducted by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC), holding that reservation for persons with disabilities does not create an automatic right to appointment.
Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that while posts identified for persons with disabilities must be meaningfully reserved, an individual candidate must still satisfy the prescribed standards of suitability. The Court said that identification of a post as suitable for a particular disability does not mean every eligible candidate with that disability must be appointed irrespective of the selection criteria.
The petition arose from two recruitment processes. In the IOCL recruitment of 2014, the petitioner’s son had qualified in GATE, GD/GT and interview stages individually, but failed to secure the minimum composite score of 40% prescribed for PwD candidates. IOCL stated that PwD applicants had already been given relaxations, including reduced qualifying marks in the engineering degree, GATE and composite score. The Court noted that the petitioner’s son scored 31.893, well below the relaxed benchmark. It held that Clause 22 of the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 29 December 2005 permits relaxation where sufficient PwD candidates are unavailable, but does not compel an employer to keep lowering the standard until a particular candidate qualifies. If a reserved vacancy remains unfilled, the law provides for carry forward of that vacancy.
In the ONGC recruitment of 2017, the candidate secured 5 marks in the interview against the required 6 marks for PwD candidates and also fell below the cut-off score. The Court found no legal basis to grant a grace mark, stating that neither the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 nor the recruitment rules empowered ONGC to alter marks after the selection process.
The Court also rejected the broader challenge to interview, group discussion and group task stages, observing that such selection methods are not unlawful per se unless shown to disadvantage candidates because of their disability. No such material was placed before the Court.
While dismissing the petition, the Court emphasized that public employers must periodically review whether their recruitment standards unnecessarily exclude persons with disabilities and should use available relaxation powers where justified. However, it reiterated that effective reservation does not translate into an enforceable right to appointment despite failure to meet lawful selection standards.
Bottom Line :
Persons with disabilities - Reservation in identified posts does not mean every eligible PwD candidate is automatically entitled to appointment - Employer may prescribe reasonable standards of suitability and relax them under applicable instructions, but is not bound to keep lowering standards merely because a reserved vacancy remains unfilled - Unfilled reserved vacancy can be carried forward under statute.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 32, 33 and 36 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, Sections 20, 33 and 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Clause 22 of DoPT Office Memorandum dated 29-12-2005
Ashwin Jawaharlal Mehta v. Union of India, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2982838
