Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Gau) 855

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
Neelim Pathak, S/o - Bhabananda Pathak – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam Represented By The Commissioner And Secretary To The Government Of Assam, Public Works Department And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C)/6465 of 2023, WP(C)/6506 OF 2023
Decided On : 30-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. P K Roychoudhury, Mr. N G Kundu, S. P Pmanyu,Ms. D R Basumatary
For the Respondent: Sc, Apsc, Sc, Pwd

While statutory provisions mandate filling unfilled reserved disability vacancies through interchange, the process remains strictly subject to merit-based selection criteria. Candidates cannot establish a right to appointment through litigation if they remain lower in the merit list compared to others within the same eligibility category.

Headnote:(A) Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Section 34(2) - Public Employment - Recruitment of persons with disabilities - Scope of interchange of unfilled vacancies - Recruitment process mandate - Rule of merit. (Paras 14-17)

(B) Administrative Law - Policy implementation - Adherence to memorandum regarding inter-se exchange of vacancies - Whether judicial intervention warranted when statutory provisions and policy guidelines for filling backlog vacancies are followed strictly as per merit. (Paras 15-17)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, belonging to a specific category of disability, participated in a recruitment process for government engineering posts. Certain reserved vacancies for other disability categories remained vacant due to the unavailability of suitable candidates. Petitioners challenged their non-selection, contending that these unfilled vacancies and backlog posts should have been mandatorily filled by interchanging them with their category. They asserted that their initiative in filing legal proceedings should entitle them to preference over other non-litigating candidates within the same disability category who occupied higher positions in the merit list.

Findings of Court:
The implementation of the interchange policy, which allocated a specific percentage of unfilled vacancies to the petitioners' category, was found to be in compliance with the relevant statutory provisions and official policy memoranda. The selection process adhered to the requirement of merit-based appointment. The court emphasized that even if additional posts were to be added to the quota, the petitioners failed to meet the merit criteria, as numerous other candidates within the same disability category were ranked higher than them.

Issues: Whether the state is required to fill unfilled reserved vacancies for persons with disabilities through indiscriminate interchange, and whether a candidate’s standing in the merit list can be bypassed in favor of those initiating litigation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while the relevant statute mandates filling backlog vacancies by interchange among disability categories when suitable candidates are unavailable, this process must still respect the overarching principle of merit-based selection. A petitioner cannot claim a right to appointment simply by approaching the court if their position in the merit list is inferior to other available candidates within the same quota.

Result: Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural context for consolidated writ petitions recruitment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. parties' contentions on pwd reservation and vacancies. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. factual verification of reserved and backlog vacancies. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
4. implementation of section 34(2) via office memorandum. (Para 14 , 15)
5. merit-based selection precludes claims for lower-ranked candidates. (Para 16 , 17)
6. dismissal of writ petitions lacking legal merit. (Para 18)

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

Heard Mr. P. K. Deka, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner in WP(C).No.6506/2023 and Mr. P. K. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner in WP(C).No.6465/2023. Also heard Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, and Mr. P. P. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, APSC, for the above noted 02 (two) writ petitions.

2. The above noted writ petitions having raised similar questions of law based on same facts, were taken up for hearing for final consideration, with the consent of the parties and is being disposed of by this common Judgment and Order.

3. The petitioners in the above noted writ petitions have projected that they suffer from Locomotor disability and accordingly are Persons with Benchmark Disability. The petitioners in the above noted writ petitions in pursuance to an advertisement dated 15.03.20223, issued by the Assam Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission), inviting applications for recruitment against 244 post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) under the joint cadre of Public Works Roads Department (PWRD) and Public Works (Building and National Highway) Department, had submitted their respective applications. The said advertisement having also earmarked 12 (twelve) vacant posts, for Persons with Benchmark Disability, the petitioners project that they had submitted the requisite certificates to bring them within the purview of the said reservations mandated for Persons With Benchmark Disability.

The Commission thereafter, vide a corrigendum dated 03.08.2023, set out the break up of vacancies so advertised and 15 (fifteen) vacancies were shown to have been reserved for various categories of Person with Benchmark Disability. The applications submitted by the petitioners being found to be in conformity with the eligibility criteria set out, they were permitted to participate in the recruitment process. The petitioners cleared the screening test held for the purpose and accordingly, the petitioners were called for appearing in the viva voce/interview segment of the selection process.

On conclusion of the selection process the Commission vide notification dated 19.10.2023, declared the results of the selection process. In the select list so published, the names of the petitioners in the above noted 02 (two) writ petitions did not find mention. The result sheet further having projected that 06 (six) vacancies pertaining to reserved for Persons with Benchmark Disability could not be filled up due to non availability of suitable candidates and the same including vacancies which were backlog vacancies, the petitioners have instituted the present writ petitions praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities for filling up of the said vacancies which had remained unfilled for want of suitable Person with Benchmark Disability by interchanging the said vacancies amongst the other categories of Person with Benchmark Disability.

4. Mr. P. K. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner in WP(C).No.6465/2023, by reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that in terms of the provisions of the Rights Of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, more particularly Section 34 (2), thereof, the backlog vacancies which had remained unfilled was not permissible to be carried forward and the said backlog vacancies were required to be so filled up by interchange amongst the 05 (five) categories of Person with Benchmark Disability. It is