SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ori) 725

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
R.K. PATTANAIK, J.
Sameer Satapathy - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha And Others - Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.19594, 19246, 19578, 19635 of 2021
Decided On : 25-09-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate, Mr. D. Acharya, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties :Ms. B. Dash, ASC, Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate, Mr. B.S. Rayaguru, CGC

The Act mandates that only individuals with permanent disabilities meet the benchmark for reservation in employment, excluding those with temporary disabilities from eligibility.

Headnote:(A) Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - The Act prescribes reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities, defined as having not less than 40% permanent disability. The Court examined the eligibility of petitioners rejected for not meeting these criteria based on medical assessments. (Paras 10-11, 19-20)

(B) Equal Opportunity - The principle of equal opportunity in employment is highlighted. The Court differentiated between temporary and permanent disabilities, ruling only permanent disabilities warrant reservation in employment. (Paras 20-21)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged notification deeming them ineligible for posts due to temporary nature of their disabilities despite having been provisionally selected. They argued that the Disability Certificates stated permanent disabilities. (Paras 3-6)

Findings of Court:
Court found only two petitioners eligible having permanent disabilities; others failed to meet benchmark of 40%. The issuance of notification was aligned with the Act’s requirements. (Paras 22-24)

Issues: The key issue was whether petitioners with temporary disabilities should be granted reservations in employment. (Paras 10-11)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court concluded that only individuals with permanent disabilities, who meet defined criteria, are eligible for reservation under the Act, reinforcing that temporary disabilities do not confer similar rights. (Paras 20-21)

Result: Writ petitions of two petitioners allowed; other petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. background of the petitions regarding disability certification. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. court's analysis on applicability of disability laws and implications for petitioners. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 21 , 22)
3. arguments concerning temporary versus permanent disability in context of job reservations. (Para 11 , 12 , 14 , 18)
4. definition of benchmark disability for job reservation. (Para 15)
5. conclusion and order based on court findings and directions. (Para 23 , 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT:

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. All the writ petitions have been clubbed together for disposal by the following common judgment.

2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioners assailing the impugned notification dated 28th June, 2021 at Annexure-14 and further to direct opposite party No.1 to issue letters of appointment in their favour to the posts applied for pursuant to the select list as at Annexure-5 with effect from the date the other candidates have been issued the appointment orders besides granting them the consequential service and financial benefits within a stipulated period.

3. In fact, the challenge is to the notification of the Government of Odisha in Department of Water Resources at Annexure-14, whereby, the petitioners have been found not suitable to be appointed to the posts under Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) category after verification by the Special Medical Board in terms of the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and guidelines issued by the Social Security and Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (SS&EPD) Department dated 24th October, 2019 as wholly illegal, arbitrary and not in consonance with law and guidelines of the Department dated 16th April, 2019 by then in force when Advertisement No.1 of 2019/20 was published by the Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC) dated 27th May, 2019 and equally violative of the principles of natural justice.

4. The OPSC with the advertisement as per Annexure-1 invited online applications from the prospective candidates to fill up the posts of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) in (a) Water Resources Department; (b) Works Department; and (c) Housing and Urban Development Department under Water Resources Department and Assistant Executive Engineer (Mechanical) under Water Resources Department in Group-A of the Odisha Engineering Service carrying the scale of pay in Level-12 of Pay Matrix under Odisha Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 2017 with usual DA and other allowances as may be admissible. In the said advertisement, the vacancy position for PwDs category was 37 with the following break-ups, such as, (i) blindness/low vision-16; (ii) hearing impairment-05;(iii) locomotor disability/cerebral palsy-04; and (iv) autism/intellectual disabilities/multiple disabilities-12.

5. According to the petitioners, in such advertisement i.e. Annexure-1, nature and degree of disability has not been prescribed for being eligible. The requirement of a Disability Certificate is only specified therein indicating the percentage of specified disability. It is pleaded that as per the advertisement, persons with more than 40% disability are bestowed with a concession for being exempted from payment of fee on the application with age relaxation. Pursuant to the advertisement of the OPSC, the petitioners with all documents applied for the posts enclosing Disability Certificates (Annexure-2) issued by the District Medical Board. The common pleading is that the OPSC having found the petitioners eligible, issued admit cards (Annexure-3) to them as PwDs candidates to appear the written examination to be held on 15th December, 2019. The petitioners, as further made to reveal from the pleading on record, having cleared the written examination were called for viva voce test by letters of intimation (Annexure-4) fixing the dates to appear for the said purpose. Thereafter, according to the petitioners, all of them stood provi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top