IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ARIJIT BANERJEE, BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY, JJ.
Sri. Sekhar Sarkar - Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondents
MAT 12 of 2025 With CAN 1 of 2025
Decided On : 07-07-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the appellant and appeal process. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's conclusions and directions regarding filling the vacancy. (Para 3 , 17) |
| 3. arguments regarding eligibility for vacancies and categorization. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. court's analysis of the legal provisions regarding vacancies. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. final conclusion and order of dismissal. (Para 18) |
JUDGMENT :
Arijit Banerjee, J.
1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated October 1, 2024, whereby the appellant’s writ petition being WPA 2054 of 2024 was disposed of by a learned Judge of this Court.
2. The appellant/writ petitioner participated in a recruitment process initiated by the West Bengal College Service Commission (in short the Commission) under the Persons with Disability PWD – (B) Category. His name appeared against Serial no. 2 of the provisional merit list published by the Commission. He submitted before the learned Single Judge that there is a vacancy in PWD- (A) category because of non-joining of one of the merit listed candidates. He sought appointment in the said vacancy.
3. The learned Judge disposed of the writ petition with the following observations:-
“The order dated 8th July, 2019 of the Labour Department, Government of West Bengal published in the Kolkata Gazette Extraordinary deals with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
It mentions that if any vacancy cannot be filed up due to non- availability of a suitable person with benchmark disability or for any other sufficient reason, such vacancy shall be filled up through the procedure as mentioned in Section 34(2) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Section 34(2) of the Act, 2016 lays down that where in any recruitment year any vacancy cannot be filled up due to non- availability of a suitable person with benchmark disability or for any other sufficient reason, such vacancy shall be carried forward in the succeeding recruitment year and if in the succeeding recruitment year also suitable person with benchmark disability is not available, it may first be filled by interchange among the five categories and only when there is no person with disability available for the post in that year, the employer shall fill up the vacancy by appointment of a person, other than a person with disability subject to the proviso mentioned in the Section.
From the aforesaid provisions of law, it appears that the vacancy which cannot be filled up in a particular year is required to be carried forward in the succeeding recruitment year.
In the instant case, the vacancy in the PWD- (A) category could not be filed up because of non-joining of the merit listed candidate. For filing up the same, the employer is required to carry forward the vacancy in the succeeding recruitment year. Only if the vacancy still cannot be filled up, then the same may be filled up by interchange among the five categories.
The appropriate authority is directed to take steps in accordance with law to fill up the said vacancy.”
4. Appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner, Ms. Usha Maity, learned Advocate submitted as follows:-
(i) Advertisement No. 01 of 2020 dated 24.12.2020 was published by the Commission for recruitment of Assistant Professor in English.
(ii) On 24.11.2022 interview of the petitioner was held.
(iii) On 22.09.2023, the provisional merit panel was published. The appellant was empanelled as S.C. PWD- (B) category candidate. However, in the advertisement, there was no categorisation as ‘A’, ‘B’or ‘C’.
(iv) It is settled law that no eligibility criteria or condition can be changed after the advertisement is published. However, in the present case three sub categories under SC, PWD have been shown in the merit panel which does not appear in the advertisement.
(v) The Government order dated July 8, 2019, would show that Model 100- Point Roster of Vacancies as notified by the Labour Department on 01.03.2024 was modified whereby 32nd vaca
Vacancies for persons with disabilities must be filled following statutory procedures defined in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, ensuring compliance with initial advertisement criteria a....
The Court emphasized that physically disabled individuals constitute a unique category entitled to equal treatment without further classification such as caste or religion, mandating adherence to mer....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the reservation for PWD candidates is horizontal and candidates must be appointed against vacancies exclusively earmarked for them.
The principle of merit must prevail in filling unreserved vacancies for Persons with Disabilities, allowing the appointment of meritorious candidates from any reserved category when more qualified th....
Court upheld the prerogative of the appropriate government in reserving posts for disabled candidates as per the Act, asserting that judicial intervention in recruitment processes must be limited and....
Unreserved posts, even when subject to horizontal reservation for specific categories like disability, are open to all candidates regardless of social category. Merit is the sole criterion for appoin....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.