Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Gau) 1169

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Devashis Baruah, J.
Indrajeet Kumar Mahato, S/O Sri Ram Chandra Mahato - Petitioner
Versus
The Govt Of Assam Rep. By The Commissioner/Secretary To The Govt. Of Assam, Department Of Law And Justice And Ors – Respondents
WP(C) 6004 of 2017
Decided On : 11-06-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. D. Gogoi, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. M. Chetia, Govt. Advocate, Mr. H. K. Das, SC, GHC, Mr. N. K. Sarmah, Advocate

Identification of posts under Section 32 is a procedural requirement for appointment and not a precondition for calculating the minimum 3% reservation mandate under Section 33. The state has a non-negotiable statutory obligation to ensure equitable representation for persons with disabilities in all public recruitment processes.

Headnote:(A) Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - Sections 32 and 33 - Recruitment process - Reservation for persons with disabilities - Identification of posts is not a precondition for calculating 3% reservation mandated under Section 33 - Legislative intent behind Section 32 is not to frustrate rights conferred by Section 33 - Failure to identify posts cannot absolve the state from its statutory obligation to provide reservation. (Paras 12, 13, 16)

(B) Judicial review - Scope - Where the selection process is largely completed and third-party rights are crystallised, the court may decline to set aside the entire engagement, instead directing reserved vacancies to be filled in a manner that satisfies the statutory quota to balance individual rights with public interest. (Paras 21, 22)

Facts of the case:
An advertisement for government posts omitted explicit reservation for persons with disabilities. The petitioner challenged the recruitment claiming non-compliance with statutory reservation norms. While the selection process was completed and most posts were filled, one vacancy remained, and the authorities had failed to identify suitable posts for disabled candidates during the initial recruitment phase.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the law places a positive obligation on the state to reserve vacancies regardless of prior post-identification. While the court declined to nullify the entire selection process due to the substantial time elapsed and potential prejudice to appointed individuals, it ordered the remaining vacancy to be exclusively reserved for a qualified disabled candidate.

Issues: Whether the failure to identify posts for disabled persons under Section 32 nullifies the requirement for 3% reservation under Section 33, and how to reconcile the statutory right to reservation with the stability of a long-concluded recruitment exercise.

Ratio Decidendi: The identification of posts is a facilitating step for appointment and does not function as a condition precedent for the statutory mandate to provide horizontal reservation. Authorities must adhere to the reservation mandate, and where initial implementation failed, remaining vacancies must be utilized to rectify the omission.

Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions to fill the vacant post by reserving it for a person with disability, including the grant of necessary age relaxation.

Table of Content
1. dispute concerning non-reservation for disabled persons in judicial recruitment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. respondents argue post identification prerequisite justifies lack of reservation. (Para 7 , 8)
3. the persons with disabilities act, 1995 mandates employment opportunities through reservation. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. identification of posts under section 32 is distinct from calculating reservation quota under section 33. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
5. doctrine of balancing equities limits retrospectivity while ensuring future compliance. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)

JUDGMENT :

Devashis Baruah, J.

Heard Mr. D. Gogoi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. M. Chetia, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Mr. H. K. Das, the learned Senior Counsel as well as the Standing Counsel of the Gauhati High Court assisted by Mr. N. K. Sarmah appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos.2 & 3.

2. The Petitioner who is a person with locomotor disability, and more specifically, OL - one leg affected (Left) is aggrieved by the non-inclusion of the reservation in terms with the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 in the advertisement dated 07.09.2015, and therefore, has challenged the said advertisement and the consequential selection carried thereupon.

3. The materials on record show that an advertisement was issued on 07.09.2015 for filling up of 397 posts of Computer Typist for the subordinate judiciary of Assam. In the advertisement though there is age relaxation provided to Persons with Disabilities, but the said advertisement did not specifically mention that there was a reservation for Persons with Disabilities. Be that as it may, the Petitioner submitted his application by taking note of the advertisement which categorically mentioned that the reservation of the posts for different categories would be as per Rules.

4. The Petitioner upon applying was issued an acknowledgment card. The said acknowledgment card has been enclosed as Annexure-VI to the writ petition. A perusal of the acknowledgment card does not show that the candidature of the Petitioner was under any reservation.

5. Be that as it may, the Petitioner participated in both the written test as well as skill test. However, the Petitioner was surprised to learn upon the Select List being published that there was no persons selected belonging to Persons with Disabilities. The vertical reservations were provided for OBC, SC, ST(P) candidates however no person was selected on the basis of horizontal reservation which included reservation for persons with disability. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner therefore approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

6. This Court vide the order dated 08.11.2017 issued notice. The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court was duly informed at the time of issuing notice that out of 51 posts advertised for the Kamrup (Metro) District Judiciary, only 50 numbers of appointments were made and one post slated for the MACT Court was kept vacant on account of lack of infrastructural facilities. The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court while issuing notice directed the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 that if the said Respondents intended to make any appointment to the 51st advertised post, an exercise be made to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the said post ought to have been reserved for the physically challenged persons under the Act of 1995.

7. This Court has also taken note of the affidavit filed by the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 in the instant proceedings wherein it was mentioned that the Petitioner lacked merit qua the unreserved category candidates, and as such, the Petitioner could not have been selected. It was also mentioned that the question of the Petitioner having a grievance for not being selected as a PwD candidate did not arise in as much as there was no reservation for PwD candidate in t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Gau) 1169

Cases Referred (4)