Compliance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act in recruitment processes is necessary for inclusive employment.

JUDGMENT

P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J

Heard C.M.Appln.No.1 of 2026 for condonation of delay.

For the reasons stated in the affidavit, delay of 201 days in filing the writ appeal is condoned.

2. This intra-court appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P. (C)No.31767/2024, challenging the judgment dated 02.04.2025, dismissing his writ petition.

3. The appellant is a person with bench mark disability of 50%. He had attended the interview for the post of Part time Sweeper, in the office of the 2ndrespondent, as per Ext.P2 letter issued by the Employment Exchange. But the appellant was not selected by the Interview Board. It is the case of the appellant that no specific reasons have been assigned for not selecting the appellant. It is also his case that the respondents have not complied withSection 34of theRights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and, if the vacancies are reserved as per the said provision, the appellant would have been selected. It is in such circumstances, the appellant filed the writ petition seeking the following relief:

“Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction commanding the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's application for the post of Part-Time Sweeper in the light of mandatory provisions of Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act,2016 and Rules thereunder in the interest of justice.”

4. The learned single judge, after considering the materials on record and hearing both sides, dismissed the writ petition.

5. Heard Adv. Aravind S.S., the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Adv. Sunilkumar Kuriakose, the learned senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act and Rules, every Government establishment must reserve certain percentage of vacancies to be filled by persons with bench mark disabilities, like the appellant and they must maintain a vacancy based roster for such persons. He contended that the respondents are, by violating all these provisions, making recruitment continuously and if they have followed the laws, the appellant would have been selected.

7. Per contra, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that, when the vacancy was reported to the Employment Exchange, it is after taking note that the vacancy is earmarked for candidates in general quota, a list of 12 candidates was forwarded to the 2^nd respondent, who after conducting an interview, selected the most suitable person and appointed him. He also submitted that the relief prayed for by the appellant cannot be granted, since the person who has been selected has not been arrayed as a party in the writ petition.

8. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that on the basis of an interview conducted, a person has already been selected and appointed in the vacancy notified. The appellant has not arrayed the said person as a respondent in the writ petition. We are of the view that the appellant will not be entitled to the relief as sought afore, since he is a necessary party and any orders passed in this case will adversely affect him.

9. Be that as it may, the statement filed by the 2^nd respondent shows that apart from the appellant, 12 other persons have also been called for the interview and that it is the person, who has secured the highest mark in the interview, who has been appointed. The appellant does not dispute the said fact and he has no case that the interview board was biased or it has acted arbitrarily or illegally. The only contention of the appellant is that the recruitment has been made without complying with the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act and Rules, which states that a percentage of the vacan