The court affirmed the right of a disabled candidate to be appointed under the PwD category despite administrative errors, emphasizing the need for rectification of such mistakes.

Order :

1. Petitioner herein, an aspirant to become a Safai Karamchari, inter alia, seeks issuance of an appropriate writ, order, and/or direction commanding the respondents to consider his candidature for appointment to the post of Safai Karamchari under the reserve category of Physically Disabled Person (Handicapped) with all consequential benefits as given to his counterparts pursuant to advertisement No.1/2018.

2. Relevant facts first. On 13.04.2018, the respondents issued Advertisement No. 1/2018 for the recruitment of Safai Karamcharis in 184 municipalities across Rajasthan. As per the advertisement, a bona fide resident of Rajasthan with one year of experience was eligible. Reservations were provided for SC, ST, OBC, PwD, women, widows, and divorced women. Selection was to be made through a lottery system under the Rajasthan Nagar Palika (Safai Karamchari Seva) Niyam, 2012.

2.1. The petitioner, being eligible and a bona fide resident of Udaipur, applied under the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) category due to 90% hearing impairment and also under the Scheduled Caste (SC) category. Despite submitting his application under the PwD category, his name was erroneously recorded under only the SC category in the official checklist. Consequently, his candidature was considered only in the SC lottery, where he was not selected, even though 35 posts were reserved for PwD candidates, and only 10 applications were received.

2.2. Upon learning of the error, the petitioner submitted a representation to Respondent No.3, who acknowledged the mistake and wrote to Respondent No.2 on 27.08.2020 and 13.10.2020, requesting appropriate consideration.

2.3. In response, Respondent No.2 sought clarifications regarding (i) whether the petitioner had applied under the PwD category and submitted a disability certificate, (ii) who was responsible for the error, and (iii) what action was taken against the responsible officials. Respondent No.3, in its reply dated 23.11.2020, confirmed that the petitioner had applied under PwD, but due to a software error, his name was wrongly categorized. An inquiry committee was constituted to investigate the matter.

2.4. Despite repeated requests and official correspondence, no corrective action was taken, and the petitioner was not appointed. A legal notice was sent to the respondents on 07.04.2021, but no response was received. Hence the instant petition.

3. Candid stand taken in the reply, which is contained in para 1 thereof, reads as under:

“That the contents of Para no. 1 of the writ petition are denied for want of knowledge although it was true that petitioner applied for the post of physically disabled person in SC category but his name was selected in SC category in the lottery system but his number was not selected in lottery. It is also mentioned that his category was not verified by the inspection committee in specially-able category by mistake.”

4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions and gone through the case record.

5. From the reply, it is clear that the respondents have, on oath, admitted that, due to a mistake on their part, the candidature of the petitioner could not be considered in the Physically Handicapped category. Instead, he was treated as a candidate in the SC category, and when the draw of lots was conducted in the said category, his name did not make it on the select list.

6. Being so, I see no reason why the petitioner’s claim of being treated as physically handicapped can not be accepted, especially when his disability is otherwise not disputed. Furthermore, special provisions are created under Sections 32 and 33 of the Disabilities Act, 1995. Same being apposite are reproduced hereinbelow:-

"32.Identification of posts which can be reserved for persons with disabilities.-

Appropriate Governments shall -

(a) identify posts, in the establishments, which can be reserved for the persons with disability;

(b) at periodical intervals not exceeding three years, review the list of