Reservation in promotion for persons with benchmark disabilities is a statutory right; absence of rules cannot defeat it. The State must consider PwD for promotion retrospectively.

1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Petitioner, a person with benchmark disability, seeking consideration for promotion under the PwD quota from the respective dates of eligibility, along with consequential benefits. The Petitioner also challenges the order dated 11.03.2026 whereby he has been reverted from the post of Deputy Forest Ranger, contending that his statutory right to reservation in promotion under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 has been denied.

Brief Facts

2. The present writ petition arises out of a service dispute concerning denial of reservation in promotion to a person with benchmark disability. The Petitioner, born on 22.02.1978, suffers from haemophilia—a hereditary blood disorder—which stands certified as a benchmark disability. Upon the demise of his father on 17.07.1992, the Petitioner became entitled to compassionate appointment. Consequently, he was appointed as a Forest Guard on

07.03.1996 by the State of Haryana.

3. Under applicable instructions, he ought to have been appointed as Forester at the initial stage itself. This anomaly was later acknowledged by the State, which issued an order dated 08.01.2021 granting him notional appointment as Forester w.e.f. 07.03.1996., the said benefit stood withdrawn pursuant to dismissal of his LPA on 11.11.2025, restoring his original appointment as Forest Guard.

4. In the interregnum, based on the 2021 order, the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy Forest Ranger on 18.02.2021 and continued to discharge duties on that post. However, at no stage was he considered under the reservation quota for persons with disabilities, despite statutory mandate under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 (in short 1995 act) and later the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (in short 2016 act). He was eventually promoted to Forester only on 01.08.2017 on general seniority, thereby losing earlier promotional avenues.

5. The Petitioner had earlier submitted a representation dated 02.01.2019 seeking reservation in promotion, which remained undecided. Subsequently, after issuance of Haryana Government Instructions dated 11.07.2023 providing for retrospective implementation of reservation in promotion from 01.01.1996, the Petitioner again submitted a detailed representation on 13.01.2026. Meanwhile, following dismissal of the LPA, the Respondents issued a show cause notice dated 09.02.2026 and, thereafter, passed the impugned order dated 11.03.2026, cancelling the Petitioner’s notional appointment as Forester and his promotion to Deputy Forest Ranger, and reverting him to the post of Forester w.e.f. 01.08.2017.

6. Aggrieved thereby, and by continued denial of reservation in promotion, the present petition has been instituted.

Contentions On behalf of petitioner

7. Mr. Abhijeet Singh Rawaley, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the denial of reservation in promotion is ex facie illegal, being contrary to the mandate of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 and Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. It is argued that the expression “no promotion shall be denied” has been consistently interpreted to include a positive obligation upon the State to extend reservation in promotional avenues.

8. It is further contended that the issue is no longer res integra in view of authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Rajeev Kumar Gupta v. Union of India (2016) 13 SCC 153, Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka & ors. 2020 3 SCALE 99 and State of Kerala v. Leesamma Joseph (2021) 9 SCC 208, wherein it has