The court emphasized that rigid adherence to recruitment rules without considering reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities violates their rights under the RPwD Act.

JUDGMENT :

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J)

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and by consent of the Advocates representing the respective parties, petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. Petitioner, battling and surmounting debility against visual impairment (100% blindness), has filed the present Petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Factual Matrix :

3. Respondent published an advertisement No.01/2023 dated 20.01.2023, inviting online registration of applications from eligible candidates for the Maharashtra Subordinate Group-B and Group-C Services Combined Preliminary Examination-2023 (“said advertisement”). Supplementary advertisement bearing Advertisement No. 111/2023 was published on 13.10.2023

4. In response to the said advertisement, Petitioner being 100% permanently visually impaired (blind), on 30.01.2023 applied for the post of Clerk-Typist (Marathi – English)-2023 under the Person with Disability category .

5. Said advertisement, required candidates to submit preferences online for the appointing authority i.e. Administrative Department (Pradhikaran Vibhag)”. On account of her disability, Petitioner took assistance from a person at the internet cafe to fill the preference form. While selecting the preference option, person from internet cafe assisting Petitioner, inadvertently selected the option of “no preference” in the preference list for selecting the appointing authority. Petitioner was oblivion of the said error. Petitioner successfully cleared the preliminary as well as mains examination in one attempt with a total score of 192.48.

6. Upon being informed of the error committed, in selecting the option for the appointing authority, Petitioner immediately by her letter dated 28.02.2025, brought the said error to the notice of the Respondent and requested for indulgence to correct the said error by editing the said option to give her choice of preference for the appointing authority. Petitioner did not receive any response to the letter dated 28.02.2025, as such Petitioner made another representation dated 03.03.2025 to the Respondent. National Association for the Blind (NAB) an organization working for the upliftment of individuals with visual impairment, made a similar request to the Respondent to consider affording an opportunity to the Petitioner to edit her preference for appointing authority.

7. Vide reply dated 06.03.2025, Respondent rejected the request of the Petitioner. Ground for rejection was that the clause/s of the said advertisement / examination scheme did not permit modifying / changing the option in respect of the preference for appointing authority.

8. Petitioner is thus before this Court seeking the following substantial relief :

“a) Be pleased to call for records and proceedings of the advertisement No 01/2023 and the supplementary advertisement No. 111/2023 and the letter dated 6th March 2025 issued by the respondent herein thereby rejecting the request of correction of error in the preference form of the petitioner and after going through the same and satisfying about its legality, validity and propriety, be pleased to quash and set aside the letter dated 6th March 2025 and further direct the respondent to provide one opportunity to the petitioner to correct the error made in the preference form as per the terms and conditions as this Hon'ble High court may deem fit and proper;”

9. Respondent appeared through learned Advocate Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni and has opposed the petition.

SUBMISSIONS:

10. Dr. Uday Warunjikar, learned Advocate on behalf of the Petitioner has advanced following arguments :

(a) Petitioner deserves an an opportunity to correct / edit the preference of appointing authority, considering her disability.

(b) Error in excising the “no preference” of appointing authority, was attributable to the disability of the Petitioner, resulting in the Petitioner requiring assistance to fill the online form, by taking assistance of t