Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Ashish Shroti, J.
Vaishali Chaturvedi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Writ Petition No. 19248 of 2024 (Gwalior); Decided on 29.10.2025
(1) Junior Service (Joint Qualifying) Examination Rules, 2013 (M.P.) -- Rr. 2(k), 8 and 9 -- recruitment year -- year of identification of vacancy is the recruitment year for that vacancy -- when vacancy is not filled up, it is carried forwarded to next recruitment year -- this is also because “recruitment year” means period from 1st January to 31st December of year concerned. [Para 13]
(2) Civil Services -- backlog vacancies -- term ‘backlog’ is not defined in M. P. Junior Service (Joint Qualifying) Examination Rules, 2013 -- however, in general parlance, backlog means vacancies which are identified in previous year but could not be filled due to any reason -- thus, remaining unfilled vacancies of previous year(s) are called backlog vacancies -- they form a separate and distinct group and are different from vacancies of the year of actual recruitment -- such carried forward vacancies shall not form part of vacancies of a later recruitment year -- nor shall they be counted to work out percentage of reservation -- whether or not they were advertised, carried forward vacancies of previous years are backlog vacancies. 2014 (2) MPLJ 580 relied on. [Paras 15 & 17]
(3) Words and phrases -- backlog vacancies -- in general parlance, backlog means vacancies which are identified in previous year but could not be filled due to any reason -- thus, remaining unfilled vacancies of previous year(s) are called backlog vacancies. [Para 15]
(4) Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 -- S. 34(1) -- effort of Government should be to ensure that earmarked posts are filled up by persons with benchmark disability. [Para 20]
(5) Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 -- S. 34(2) -- a vacancy can go unfilled only in two situations -- firstly, it was advertised but could not be filled up because of non-availability of suitable candidate -- secondly, post was not advertised -- S. 34(2) takes care of both situations -- it provides interchange of vacancy when any vacancy cannot be filled up due to non-availability of suitable person with benchmark disability or “for any other sufficient reasons” -- “for any other sufficient reasons” would mean that post was not advertised. [Para 23]
(6) Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 -- S. 34(2) -- petitioner belongs to Locomotor Disability category -- vacancies in Multiple Disability category were identified in 2019 -- they were carried forward to 2020, then to 2021 and 2022 -- thereafter they were advertised in 2023 -- vacancy having been carried forward after 2019, it is liable to be filled up by interchange as candidate in Multiple Disability category is not available -- petitioner is entitled to be appointed on remaining unfilled post of Multiple Disability category. [Paras 24 to 28]
¼1½ dfu"B lsok ¼la;qä vgZrk½ ijh{kk fu;e] 2013 ¼eŒÁŒ½ & fu- 2¼ds½] 8 rFkk 9 & Hkjrh o"kZ & fjfä dh igpku dk o"kZ ml fjfä dk HkrhZ o"kZ gS & tc fjfä ugha Hkjrh rc mls vxys HkrhZ o"kZ ds fy, vkxs cढ+k fn;k tkrk gS & ,slk blfy, Hkh gS fd ^^Hkjrh o"kZ** ls vfHkçsr gS lacaf/kr o"kZ dh 1 tuojh ls 31 fnlacj rd dh dkykof/kA ¼iSjk 13½
¼2½ flfoy lsok & lafpr@u Hkjh xbZ fjfä;k¡ & in ^^lafpr@u Hkjh xbZ** eŒçŒ dfu"B lsok ¼la;qä vgZrk½ ijh{kk fu;e] 2013 esa ifjHkkf"kr ugha & rFkkfi] vke Hkk"kk esa] lafpr@u Hkjh xbZ fjfä;ksa ls og fjfä;k¡ vfHkçsr gSa ftudh igpku iwoZrj o"kZ esa dh xbZ Fkh ijarq fdlh dkj.ko'k Hkjh ugha tk ldha & vr% iwoZrj o"kZ ¼o"kksZ½ dh viwfjr fjfä;ksa dks lafpr@u Hkjh xbZ fjfä;k¡ dgk tkrk gS & muls i`Fkd~ vkSj lqfHkUu lewg xfBr gksrk gS rFkk og okLrfod HkrhZ o"kZ dh fjfä;ksa ls fHkUu gksrh gSa & bl çdkj vkxs ys tkbZ xbZ fjfä;k¡ ckn ds fdlh HkrhZ o"kZ dh fjfä;ksa dk Hkkx ugha gksaxh & u gh vkj{k.k dk çfr'kr fudkyus ds fy, mUgsa fxuk tk,xk & mudk foKkiu fn;k x;k gks ;k ugha iwoZrj o"kksZ dh vkxs ys tkbZ xbZ fjfä;k¡ lafpr@u Hkjh xbZ fjfä;k¡ gSaA 2014 ¼2½ ,eih,yts 580 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 15 ,oa 17½
¼3½ 'kCn rFkk okD;ka'k & lafpr@u Hkjh xbZ & vke Hkk"kk esa] lafpr@u Hkjh xbZ fjfä;ksa ls og fjfä;k¡ vfHkçsr gSa ftudh igpku iwoZrj o"kZ esa dh xbZ Fkh ijarq fdlh dkj.ko'k Hkjh ugha tk ldha & vr% iwoZrj o"kZ ¼o"kksZ½ dh viwfjr fjfä;ksa dks lafpr@u Hkjh xbZ fjfä;k¡ dgk tkrk gSA ¼iSjk 15½
¼4½ fnO;kaxtu vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 2016 & /kkjk 34¼1½ & ljdkj dh ps"Vk ;g lqfuf'pr djus dh gksuk pkfg, fd fpfUgr in lanfHkZr fnO;kaxtu ls Hkjs tk,¡A ¼iSjk 20½
¼5½ fnO;kaxtu vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 2016 & /kkjk 34¼2½ & dksbZ Hkh fjfä nks ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa gh viwfjr jg ldrh gS & çFker% mldk foKkiu fn;k x;k Fkk ijarq mi;qä vH;FkhZ dh xSj&miyC/krk ds dkj.k Hkjh ugha tk ldh & f}rh;r% in dk foKkiu ugha fn;k x;k & /kkjk 34¼2½ esa nksuksa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dh O;oLFkk dh xbZ gS & tc mi;qä lanfHkZr fnO;kaxtu dh xSj&miyC/krk ds dkj.k vFkok ^^dksbZ vU; i;kZIr dkj.k ls** dksbZ fjfä Hkjh ugha tk ldrh rks mlesa fjfä ds ijLij&fofue dk mica/k gS & ^^dksbZ vU; i;kZIr dkj.k ls** dk vFkZ gksxk fd ml in dk foKkiu ugha fn;k x;kA ¼iSjk 23½
¼6½ fnO;kaxtu vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 2016 & /kkjk 34¼2½ & ;kfpuh pyu fnO;kaxrk oxZ dh gS & cgqfnO;kaxrk oxZ esa fjfä;ksa dh igpku 2019 esa dh xbZ Fkh & mUgsa 2020 esa] fQj 2021 vkSj 2022 esa vkxs ys tk;k x;k & rnqijkar 2023 esa mudk foKkiu fn;k x;k & 2019 ds i'pkr~ fjfä vkxs ys tk, tkus ds dkj.k] og ijLij&fofue ls Hkjs tkus ;ksX; gS D;ksafd cgqfnO;kaxrk oxZ esa vH;FkhZ miyCèk ugha & ;kfpuh cgqfnO;kaxrk oxZ ds 'ks"k viwfjr in ij fu;qä fd, tkus dh gdnkj gSA ¼iSjk 24 ls 28½
ORDER
1. The issue raised by the petitioner in this petition is a complex but an interesting one relating to interpretation of section 34(2) of Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred as “Act of 2016”).
2. The respondent No.2, Employees Selection Board (earlier known as Professional Examination Board) issued Joint Examination Advertisement-2023 for recruitment for various posts which also included 8 backlog posts (direct recruitment) of Shorthand Typists (Group III) reserved for physically handicapped candidates of Un-reserved (UR) category for respondent No.3 Department. The posts are identified in advertisement as Post Code-022. The advertisement also clarifies that out of 8 posts, 2 posts are identified for Visually Handicap (VH), 4 posts are identified for Locomotor Disability (LD) and 2 posts are identified for Multiple Disability (MD) category.
3. The posts for as many as 135 departments were advertised including aforesaid 8 backlog posts for respondent no.3 department. The examination was conducted by Board in accordance with provisions of M.P. Junior Service (Joint Qualifying) Examination Rules, 2013, (in short Rules of 2013). As per the said Rules, every candidate is required to submit his candidature preference wise for as many posts on which he is eligible for appointment.
4. The petitioner is a candidate belonging to LD category suffering 50% Orthopedically Handicap. She also submitted her candidature as UR/EWS/LD category candidate for various posts giving her preference for as many as 108 departments. Her application is placed on record as Annexure P/2 which shows that her first preference was for the post of Hindi Stenographer while her fourth preference was for the post of Shorthand Typist in respondent no.3 department.
5. The result of the examination was published by the Board in February’ 2024 wherein the petitioner got selected for appointment on the post of Hindi Stenographer (Post Code-020) as per her first preference, in respondent No.3 department. However, when she went for joining, she was told that the advertisement for Post Code No.020 has been withdrawn by the department. The petitioner then laid her claim for appointment on Post Code No.022. However, the same has also been denied to her on the ground that against four posts of LD category, other candidates, with more merit, have been appointed and the petitioner, being at serial No.5 in the merit list, is not qualified for appointment. During the pendency of this petition, for the aforesaid reason, the result of petitioner has been cancelled vide order, dated 18.6.2024, (Annexure P/5) which has been challenged by petitioner by amending her petition.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the action of respondent No.3 in withdrawing the advertisement for Post Code No.020 after declaration of result inasmuch as the same has seriously jeopardized her right of appointment on the said post. He further submitted that one post advertised under MD category has been admittedly not filled up for nonavailability of candidate of the said category and, therefore, by virtue of provisions of Rule 34(2) of Act of 2016, she can be appointed on the said post. It is his submission that the posts advertised relates back to year 2019 and are backlog posts, as stated in the advertisement itself. He further submitted that the recruitment year for these posts is 2019 and they were carried forward to year 2020, 2021 and then 2022. Lastly, they have been advertised in the year 2023. Therefore, the conditions for interchanging the posts under section 34(2) of the Act have been duly satisfied and the petitioner can be appointed on the remaining one post of MD category.
7. The learned counsel further submitted that the object of various provisions of Act of 2016 is to ensure proper representation of PH candidates in Government employment. Since, the post in question could not be filled up in 2019 and was carried forward and further s
Vacancies for persons with disabilities must be filled following statutory procedures defined in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, ensuring compliance with initial advertisement criteria a....
The Court emphasized that physically disabled individuals constitute a unique category entitled to equal treatment without further classification such as caste or religion, mandating adherence to mer....
“Recruitment Year” cannot be a “Selection Year” as defined under the KS&SSR and can only be construed to be the year in which vacancies are available and in which recruitment is attempted.
The proviso to Rule 22 (2)(e) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1996, carves out an exception to the general rule, allowing for the appointment of a qualified male candidate with the ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the failure of the Union of India to implement the provisions of the PWD Act, 1995, and the court's invocation of Article 142 of the Constitution o....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
