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 justified.

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

1. I. A. No.3/2025 , application filed by Vijay Kumar Deshmukh, Advocate for withdrawal of his power as the appellant himself wants to argue the matter.

2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the appellant is permitted to argue the matter in person.

3. Heard Mr. Saroj Kshemanidhi, Appellant in Person. Also heard Mr.Y.S. Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent/ State as well as Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/ CGPSC.

4. The present writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 09.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No.1329/2021 (Saroj Kshemanidhi vs. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Raipur & Anr.), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.

5. The appellant/writ petitioner preferred the writ petition by contending that on 23.1.201, respondent No. 1/Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (for short “the CGPSC”) issued an advertisement for total 1384 posts for Assistant Professor including 184 posts for commerce subject. The date for submission of applications through online was from 04.02.2019 to 05.03.2019. On 23.02.2019, respondent No. 1/CGPSC issued a corrigendum amending the number of posts for physical handicapped persons. The petitioner applied for the said post on 14.03.2019, appeared in the written test conducted by CGPSC on 05.11.2020 & 07.11.2020 and cleared the same, as such he was called for interview, however, he could not find place in the final selection list, hence this petition for issuing direction to respondent No. 1 CGPSC to issue corrigendum by providing reservation to the extent of 2% for blind and low vision for current vacancy as well as for backlog vacancies for commerce faculties of Assistant Professor. The petitioner has also prayed for restraining the respondent No.1 to fill up the vacancy in this category.

6. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order observing as follows :-

13. The appointing authority being best judge to assess suitability of the candidates for its establishment or to run his administration and the Court normally should not direct employer to choose particular employee for particular assignment. The posts which are reserved for OA and OL of commerce faculty are looking to the nature of duty to be performed by them. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that commerce and science faculty not only require to impart oral lecture but also require lot of writing of numerals and figures. The appointing authority in its wisdom taking into consideration this difficulty likely to be faced by them has chosen not to provide reservation to the persons with VH. This is a subjective matter of appointing authority which cannot be found faulty or warrants interference by this Court in view of limited scope of power of interference by this Court.

14. The learned counsel for the petitioner to substantiate his submission has referred to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of National Federation of Blind (supra). This judgment also supports the stand taken by the respondents as in paragraph 38 of the judgment, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held that if a post is not suitable for one category of disability the same could be identified as suitable for another category or categories of disabilities entitled to the benefits of reservation. Similarly, the proviso to Section 34 of the Act of 2016 also empowered the appropriate Government to interchange the post within 5 categories with the prior approval of the appropriate Government. The State Government taking into consideration the difficulty likely to be faced by the VH candidate has already granted reservation for commerce faculty in OA and OL category. Thus, the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the Proviso Clause has been duly complied by