IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-14837-2026 Date of Decision:13.05.2026 RAVINDER SINGH .....Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Shantanu Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.

KULDEEP TIWARI , J.(Oral)

1. Through the instant petition cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.04.2026 (Annexure P-10), whereby, the Department of Water Resources (respondent no.3) has declined his representation dated 06.02.2026 (Annexure P-9), seeking consideration of his claim against the unfilled vacancy through interchange of category. The petitioner further seeks a mandamus upon the respondents to revise the selection final merit/ selection list for Persons with Disabilities (Category no.117 and 118), after including his name, who is meritorious and otherwise eligible under Physically Handicapped Visual Impaired (Category no.118).

2. Succinctly stated that the Punjab Subordinate Service Selection Board (respondent no.2) had advertised 44 posts of Clerk Legal/Clerk Law vide advertisement No.15 of 2024, dated 09.08.2024 (Annexure P-1), for various department, including the Department of Water Resources, Punjab, (respondent no.3), wherein total 40 vacancies were earmarked, and out of which 2 vacancies were reserved for persons with disabilities.

3. The present petitioner who is suffering from 50% disability had applied pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement. During the selection process, upon finding the petitioner being eligible for an appointment, was placed at Sr. No.88 in the common merit list-cum-result. Under the persons with disabilities, Categories 118 (visually impaired), and 119 (hearing impaired), one candidate was appointed under quota for Category-118, i.e. visually impaired, and placed at Sr. No.79, whereas, no candidate was appointed under the vacancy reserved for Category-119 (Physical Disability Hearing Impaired).

4. The petitioner made a representation dated 06.02.2026 (Annexure P-9), for allocation of seats, after conversion/interchange of the vacancy, reserved for other sub-category within PWBD Candidates.

5. The petitioner predicates his entire case upon Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2016'). The said representation was considered taking into account the recommendations of the Department of Social Security and Women and Child Development, Punjab and its instructions, and finally, the claim of the petitioner was declined through the impugned order.

6. Since the entire case is based upon the implementation of the provisions of Section 34 of the Act of 2016, with regard to interchange/conversion of vacancies reserved for different sub-categories of PwBD candidates, the same is extracted hereinafter for ready reference:-

“(2) Where in any recruitment year any vacancy cannot be filled up due to non-availability of a suitable person with benchmark disability or for any other sufficient reasons, such vacancy shall be carried forward in the succeeding recruitment year and if in the succeeding recruitment year also suitable person with benchmark disability is not available, it may first be filled by interchange among the five categories and only when there is no person with disability available for the post in that year, the employer shall fill up the vacancy by appointment of a person, other than a person with disability:

Provided that if the nature of vacancies in an establishment is such that a given category of person cannot be employed, the vacancies may be interchanged among the five categories with the prior approval of the appropriate Government.”

7. The above extracted provisions vividly postulates that if any vacancy could not be filled-up due to non-availability of a suitable person with benchmark disability, or for any other sufficient reasons, such vacancy sh