Eligibility criteria for recruitment of candidates with disabilities must prioritize functional assessments and allow relaxations when no other suitable candidates are available, ensuring compliance with a rights-based approach.

JUDGMENT :

K.V. ARAVIND, J.

1. Heard learned Senior advocate Mr. Dhananjay V. Joshi along with learned advocate Mr. S. Swaroop for the appellant, learned advocate Smt. D.J. Rakshitha for respondent No.1 and learned advocate Mr. Likith R. Prakash for respondent No.2.

2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5666 of 2018 has preferred this appeal, being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.09.2024.

3. The brief facts, as set out by the appellant, are that he is presently working as an Assistant in respondent No.2-company, having been appointed pursuant to the Notification dated 07.03.2015 under the category of Persons with Disability (PwD quota). The respondents subsequently issued an Employment Notification dated 08.09.2016 inviting applications from eligible and qualified candidates for various posts, including the post of Assistant Accounts Officer. The eligibility criteria and the prescribed qualifications were duly notified. The appellant submitted his application for the post of Assistant Accounts Officer under the PwD category. It is the case of the appellant that, though his name was notified for the purpose of appearing in the examination, his name did not find place in the provisional selection list. The appellant asserts that he suffers from a disability exceeding 75% and is therefore eligible for appointment to the said post. However, the respondents issued a provisional selection list indicating that no eligible candidate was available for the post reserved for the PwD category.

4. The appellant preferred a writ petition seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus to consider his case under the General Merit PwD quota and to include his name in the final selection list to be notified for appointment to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that, in view of the nature of disability suffered by the appellant, he is not eligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer under the PwD quota. The learned Single Judge further held that the post of Assistant Accounts Officer is not a promotional post, but one filled by direct recruitment, and that a candidate must satisfy all the eligibility criteria, including the specific disabilities prescribed.

4.1 The learned Single Judge further recorded that the recruitment notification prescribing the eligibility conditions had not been challenged. It was further held that the appellant, having participated in the selection process, is not entitled to challenge the eligibility conditions after being unsuccessful in the selection.

5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dhananjay V. Joshi, appearing along with learned Advocate Mr. S. Swaroop for the appellant, submits that the appellant was appointed as an Assistant despite the disabilities he is suffering from. It is submitted that he was not an ineligible candidate for the post reserved under the General Merit PwD category. Once the appellant was considered eligible and suitable for appointment to the post of Assistant, he ought to be considered eligible and suitable for appointment to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer as well.

5.1. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that the scope of work performed by an Assistant and an Assistant Accounts Officer is almost similar. It is further submitted that the next promotional post for the appellant