1. A candidate with ninety percent locomotor disability challenged the denial of appointment for a government legal post, where the advertisement had erroneously prescribed a sixty percent maximum disability limit. (Para 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 275
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Prabhu Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 868 of 2024
Decided On : 11-03-2026
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. P.V. Dinesh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Subhash Chandran K R, Adv. Mr. Biju P Raman, AOR Ms. Krishna L R, Adv. Ms. Anna Oommen, Adv. Mr. Anirudh K P, Adv. Mr. John Thomas Arakal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Arman Roop Sharma, Adv. Ms. Shimpy Arman Sharma, Adv. Ms. Shivangi Goel, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Dubey, Adv. Ms. Saumya Mishra, Adv. Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, AOR Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. P.V. Dinesh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Subhash Chandran K R, Adv. Mr. Biju P Raman, AOR Ms. Krishna L R, Adv. Ms. Anna Oommen, Adv. Mr. Anirudh K P, Adv. Mr. John Thomas Arakal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Arman Roop Sharma, Adv. Ms. Shimpy Arman Sharma, Adv. Ms. Shivangi Goel, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Dubey, Adv. Ms. Saumya Mishra, Adv. Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, AOR Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR
The imposition of a maximum disability limit for public employment violates the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, establishing that suitability must be assessed through reasonable accommodation and individual capability.
Headnote:(A) Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Sections 2(r) and 33 - Recruitment process for Assistant District Attorney - Maximum disability limit of 60% for reserved posts challenged - Court found it arbitrary and in violation of the Act's intent - Noted the principle of reasonable accommodation must be considered in assessing suitability for public employment. (Paras 22, 26, 40)
(B) Constitutional Law - Articles 14 and 16 - Discrimination in public employment based on arbitrary disability limits - Dismissal of appellant's claim deemed unjustified and contrary to legal provisions. (Paras 12, 40)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a law graduate with 90% disability, was excluded from a selection list for the post of Assistant District Attorney despite succeeding in the recruitment process due to unlawfully prescriptive limits on disability.
Findings of Court:
The court declared that the upper cap of 60% for disability is unjustifiable and contradicts the RPwD Act's purpose, emphasizing the need for reasonable accommodations.
Issues: Whether a maximum limit on disability qualifications for ADA is lawful and adherent to the RPwD Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the ceiling on disabilities lacks statutory support and is harmful to the intended beneficiaries of the Act, and that appointments must consider individual capabilities rather than arbitrary thresholds.
Result: The appeal is allowed and the appointment to be issued forthwith.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. The appellant argued that the sixty percent disability ceiling was arbitrary and lacked rational nexus; the respondents contended that the condition was mandatory and the appellant was estopped. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
3. The court observed that prescribing an upper disability limit without expert study lacks statutory backing, violates the principle of reasonable accommodation, and excludes qualified candidates via arbitrary barriers. (Para 22 , 23 , 26 , 27 , 35 , 37 , 38 , 39 )
4. Disability percentage thresholds that arbitrarily exclude candidates from public employment are unlawful, as state agencies must provide reasonable accommodation to ensure functional competence is assessed via individual evidence. (Para 22 , 24 , 26 , 27 , 32 , 34 )
5. The court set aside the impugned judgement, directed the immediate appointment of the appellant with all notional benefits, and imposed litigation costs on the state. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 )
6. Can the state fix a maximum ceiling for disability percentage in public recruitment for persons with benchmark disabilities?
No. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 establishes a forty percent floor for eligibility but does not permit an arbitrary upper ceiling to exclude candidates, provided they demonstrate functional ability for the role through reasonable accommodation. (Para 22 , 23 , 26 , 28 )
7. What is the requirement of 'reasonable accommodation' in the context of professional employment for persons with disabilities?
Reasonable accommodation requires the state to make necessary modifications to ensure persons with disabilities can effectively perform duties. Determinations of suitability must be individualized and evidence-based, rather than relying on stereotypical assumptions regarding disability percentages. (Para 24 , 25 , 27 , 34 , 35 )
8. Does a candidate's participation in a selection process preclude them from challenging an arbitrary recruitment condition?
No. When recruitment conditions violate constitutional and statutory mandates, an applicant is not estopped from challenging the legality of such exclusionary criteria, particularly where the condition lacks a rational nexus to the performance of professional duties. (Para 9 , 15 , 26 , 40 )
JUDGMENT :
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. The appellant herein, a Law Graduate, is a specially-abled person suffering from 90% permanent locomotor disability due to left shoulder disarticulation. He has been practicing as an advocate since 2015.
3. He has preferred the instant appeal for assailing the judgment dated 29th September, 2020 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla1[Hereinafter referred to as “High Court”] in C.W.P. No. 3634 of 2019, whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant and rejected his claim for appointment to the post of Assistant District Attorney2[For short “ADA”].
Brief Facts: -
4. The facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow.
5. An advertisement dated 2nd May, 2018 was issued by respondent No. 3- Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission3[Hereinafter referred to as “Commission”] for 24 posts of ADA, Class-I (Gazetted). Out of these 24 posts, 20 were advertised in furtherance of a requisition and 4 were backlog posts. 2 posts from the 24 advertised posts were kept reserved for persons with disability. The advertisement provided that the applicant under the disabled category should not have less than 40% disability and not more than 60% disability in one leg or one arm.
6. The appellant submitted an online application form annexing all his documents including the disability certificate and the experience certificate from the bar. After scrutinizing the application submitted by the appellant, the Commission issued a Roll number and the appellant was allowed to appear in the written test conducted on 30th September, 2018. The result of the written test was declared by the Commission on 4th July, 2019. The appellant qualified the same under the Physically Handicapped (General) category. A total of 5 candidates with disability were declared successful against these two reserved posts. The appellant having succeeded in the written/screening test was called to appear before the interview board for personality assessment which was scheduled for 2nd August, 2019. The result of interview was declared on 3rd August, 2019 and the respondent- Commission, vide press note dated 3rd August, 2019, recommended the name of the appellant for appointment to the post of ADA under the physically handicapped quota.
7. The select list was forwarded to the Government of Himachal Pradesh in the form of a recommendation and the Government, acting upon the same, issued appointments to 16 out of the 17 recommended candidates. The name of the appellant was, however, withheld and not included in the notification dated 19th September, 2019 offering appointment to only 16 candidates. The appellant made inquiries and also sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking disclosure of the reason for his exclusion in the final list of appointments. In response, the appellant was provided copy of a communication dated 19th September, 2019 wherein it was stated that the recommendation of the appellant’s name by Commission was not accepted on the ground that the appellant was having 90% disability (left shoulder disarticulation) which was well above the threshold limit of 60% fixed in the advertisement under the handicapped quota.
8. Being aggrieved by the non-issuance of appointment order despite succeeding in the selection process, the appellant approached the High Court by filing the captioned writ petition being C.W.P. No. 3634 of 2019. Before the High Court, the appellant contended that the respondents could not have prescribed a maximum limit of 60% disability in the subject recruitment process as the same ran in direct conflict with the provisions of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 20164[Hereinafter, referred to as “RPwD Act, 2016”]. The High Court, however, proceeded to dismiss the appellant’s writ petition by judgment dated 29th September, 2020 which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.
Submissions
9. Shri P.V. Dinesh, lear
