J U D G M E N T

1. Heard.

2. The appellant herein, a Law Graduate, is a specially-abled person suffering from 90% permanent locomotor disability due to left shoulder disarticulation. He has been practicing as an advocate since 2015.

3. He has preferred the instant appeal for assailing the judgment dated 29th September, 2020 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla¹Hereinafter referred to as “H igh Court”. in C.W.P. No. 3634 of 2019, whereby the High Court

DND1R8 iEae g :ta E3 iet s1 aT:o : lU2l 1n y01 : Ks

dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant and rejected his claim for appointment to the post of Assistant District Attorney, For short “ADA”.

Brief Facts: -

4. The facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow.

5. An advertisement dated 2nd May, 2018 was issued by respondent No. 3- Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, Hereinafter referred to as “Commission”. for 24 posts of ADA, Class-I (Gazetted). Out of these 24 posts, 20 were advertised in furtherance of a requisition and 4 were backlog posts. 2 posts from the 24 advertised posts were kept reserved for persons with disability. The advertisement provided that the applicant under the disabled category should not have less than 40% disability and not more than 60% disability in one leg or one arm.

6. The appellant submitted an online application form annexing all his documents including the disability certificate and the experience certificate from the bar. After scrutinizing the application submitted by the appellant, the Commission issued a Roll number and the appellant was allowed to appear in the written test conducted on 30th September, 2018. The result of the written test was declared by the Commission on 4th July, 2019. The appellant qualified the same under the Physically Handicapped (General) category. A total of 5 candidates with disability were declared successful against these two reserved posts. The appellant having succeeded in the written/screening test was called to appear before the interview board for personality assessment which was scheduled for 2nd August, 2019. The result of interview was declared on 3rd August, 2019 and the respondent- Commission, vide press note dated 3rd August, 2019, recommended the name of the appellant for appointment to the post of ADA under the physically handicapped quota.

7. The select list was forwarded to the Government of Himachal Pradesh in the form of a recommendation and the Government, acting upon the same, issued appointments to 16 out of the 17 recommended candidates. The name of the appellant was, however, withheld and not included in the notification dated 19th September, 2019 offering appointment to only 16 candidates. The appellant made inquiries and also sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking disclosure of the reason for his exclusion in the final list of appointments. In response, the appellant was provided copy of a communication dated 19th September, 2019 wherein it was stated that the recommendation of the appellant’s name by Commission was not accepted on the ground that the appellant was having 90% disability (left shoulder disarticulation) which was well above the threshold limit of 60% fixed in the advertisement under the handicapped quota.

8. Being aggrieved by the non-issuance of appointment order despite succeeding in the selection process, the appellant approached the High Court by filing the captioned writ petition being C.W.P. No. 3634 of 2019. Before the High Court, the appellant contended that the respondents could not have prescribed a maximum limit of 60% disability in the subject recruitment process as the same ran in direct conflict with the provisions of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Hereinafter, referred to as “RPwD Act, 2016”. The High Court, however, proceeded to dismiss the appellant’s writ petition by judgment dated 29th September, 2020 which is the subject matter of challenge