The denial of appointment to a meritorious candidate with less than 40% disability is arbitrary and discriminatory, violating constitutional rights to equality and non-discrimination in public employment.

JUDGMENT :

“I wish I had been more disabled — then perhaps the system would have seen me.”

These words reflect not a wish for greater suffering, but a bitter irony - that in the rigid, checkbox-driven machinery of the State’s welfare framework, a person’s lived experience of disability may fall through the cracks. In a system meant to uplift the disadvantaged, the petitioner stands at a paradox: disabled, yet not disabled enough to be seen.

1. Considering the interwoven and identical set of facts and legal issues framed and put-forth the present petitions were tagged and are henceforth adjudicated vide this common judgment, with consent of the counsel representing the parties, in both the petitions.

2. Before proceeding to examine the present petitions on their merits, it is imperative to first delineate the foundational facts and the core issues arising therein. A precise appreciation of the factual matrix and procedural background is essential to contextualize the grievances of the petitioners and the legal questions that fall for adjudication. The salient aspects of the petitions are, therefore, summarized as under.

In SBCWP No. 4343/2001 :-

3. The petitioner appeared in the Rajasthan Administrative Services Examination, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘RAS’ Examination) and secured an overall merit rank of 360. However, during the course of the post-examination formalities, the petitioner was subjected to a medical examination by the competent Medical Board. Upon assessment, the petitioner was declared medically unfit for appointment to the Rajasthan Administrative Service and its allied services on account of a visual impairment diagnosed as Congenital Nystagmus (CN).

4. Congenital Nystagmus is an ocular motor disorder of uncertain etiology, typically manifesting at birth or in early infancy. It is clinically characterized by involuntary, rhythmic oscillations of the eyes, which may affect visual acuity and ocular stability. Despite the said diagnosis, the petitioner’s visual impairment, as assessed, was less than 20%, thereby falling below the minimum threshold required to qualify as a benchmark disability under applicable norms.

5. Specifically, in accordance with the criteria laid down in the relevant notification issued by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for the Civil Services Examination (CSE), the petitioner was classified under Category 0, with corrected visual acuity in the better eye recorded between 6/9 to 6/18, and in the worse eye between 6/24 to 6/36. As such, the petitioner was not considered eligible either under the general category (due to medical unfitness) or under the reserved category for persons with benchmark disabilities (due to non-qualification of the 40%disability threshold).

6. During the pendency and adjudication of the present writ petition, this Court, by way of an interim order dated 03.09.2001, had granted protective relief in favor of the petitioner. Vide the said interim direction, it was ordered that one seat in the Rajasthan Co-operative Subordinate Service - Inspector Grade II be kept reserved and vacant for the petitioner, subject to the final outcome of the writ proceedings.

In SBCWP No. 3500/2006 :

7. The petitioner, pursuant to his candidature in the Rajasthan Administrative Services Examination, 2003, secured an overall merit position at Rank 21. Notwithstanding such commendable performance, the petitioner was appointed to the Rajasthan Accounts Service instead of the Rajasthan Administrative Service (RAS), albeit the fact that both services are categorically classified as non-technical in nature under the prevailing Medical Examination Instructions issued by the Government of Rajasthan in the year 1975.

8. Pursuant to the declaration of results and in accordance with the post-examination protocol, the petitioner was subjected to a medical examination on 14.11.2005. The Medical Board, upon evaluation, declared the petitioner unfit for appointment to the RAS cadre on account of hi