PwD Relaxations Aren't Optional: Punjab & Haryana HC Makes It a Constitutional Must

In a landmark ruling blending constitutional ethos with statutory mandates, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has declared that relaxing selection criteria for persons with disabilities (PwD) in government jobs is no mere favor—it's a binding obligation. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, delivering a common judgment in three writ petitions ( Sohan vs. State of Haryana and connected matters), slammed the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) and Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB) for rigid qualifying marks that sidelined PwD candidates, leaving reserved posts vacant.

The petitions—filed by Sohan Singh (Scientist-B recruitment), Devender Aggarwal, and Naveen Kumar (Assistant Environmental Engineer posts)—exposed systemic failures in honoring the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act, 2016.

Backlog of Broken Promises: The Recruitment Fiascos

The saga began with Advertisement No. 04/2025 for five Scientist-B posts at HSPCB, later bumped to 18 via corrigendum—yet zero spots for physically handicapped (PH-OH) despite a carried-forward vacancy from 2022. Petitioner Sohan Singh, holding a PhD and 100% locomotor disability, applied under general category but cried foul over non-compliance with RPWD Section 34(2) carry-forward rules and ignored government instructions.

Parallel dramas unfolded in the 29-post Assistant Environmental Engineer drive (Advertisement No. 20/2025), where two PwBD (locomotor/cerebral palsy) slots existed. Both Aggarwal and Kumar cleared screening but flunked the 35% subject knowledge test cutoff—introduced post-advertisement—leaving all 12 PwBD qualifiers out. No relaxations were granted, echoing a prior unfilled backlog.

HSPCB admitted an "inadvertent error" in omitting PH posts initially, while HPSC recommended able-bodied candidates for reserved slots, sparking the legal showdown filed soon after selection stages kicked off.

Petitioners' Plea: Level the Uneven Field

Petitioners argued uniform cutoffs violate Article 14's substantive equality, as PwD face inherent barriers. Citing RPWD Sections 2(y) (reasonable accommodation) and 34, plus Haryana instructions (2014-2023) mandating relaxed standards if PwD fall short, they invoked Supreme Court precedents like Tej Prakash Pathak (no post-facto rule changes) and urged filling backlogs via concessions, not de-reservation.

Sohan highlighted a prior PH post vacancy; Aggarwal and Kumar decried the 35% hurdle disqualifying all PwBD despite qualifying screening.

Respondents' Defense: Efficiency Over Empathy?

HPSC countered: Bound by HSPCB requisitions sans PwD mentions or relaxation requests, they set neutral schemes (25% screening, 35% knowledge test) pre-tests. No statutory compulsion to lower marks—RPWD mandates reservation, not diluted standards. They leaned on Sachin Kumar vs. State of Haryana (LPA 2408/2025), stressing administrative efficiency trumps blanket relaxations, and noted petitioners participated sans protest until failure.

HSPCB confessed the Scientist-B omission but pushed de-reservation for able-bodied next-in-merit, awaiting government nod.

Dismantling Ableism: Court's Deep Dive into Equality

Justice Brar reframed the debate through a human rights prism, quoting Jeeja Ghosh vs. UOI on societal barriers beyond impairments. He dissected RPWD as a "super-statute" ( In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired ), mandating 4% reservation (Section 34) with carry-forwards and accommodations (Section 3).

Key: Uniform standards = indirect discrimination ( In Re: Visually Impaired ), as PwD don't start equal. Indra Sawhney permits relaxations sans efficiency compromise; Haryana's own instructions (e.g., 25.04.2018, 01.05.2019) explicitly allow lowered suitability thresholds if PwD unavailable on general norms.

Rejecting Sachin Kumar reliance (uninformed of DoPT notifications), the Court invoked Vikash Kumar and Om Rathod for "reasonable accommodation" as Article 21's gateway right—substantive, not formal equality ( Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal ).

As media reports noted post-judgment, this aligns with the Court's view that "relaxation... is not a concession but a constitutional obligation."

Key Observations

"Implementing relaxation in selection standards for persons with disabilities... does not violate Articles 14 & 16... The State bears the responsibility to remove barriers..."

"Equal treatment to unequals does not always yield equitable results... relaxing the selection criteria... is imperative to achieve substantive equality."

"The reservation of posts in favour of persons with disabilities would be rendered redundant if they are judged on the exact same criteria as their able bodied counterparts."

"A disability does not disentitle a person from seeking fulfillment... their rights ought to be looked at from a human rights lens." ( Jeeja Ghosh , cited extensively)

Directives for Transformative Change

Petitions allowed: Haryana's Chief Secretary must form a committee (within 2 weeks) to set PwD relaxation norms, drawing from DoPT guidelines and SC rulings—finalized in 4 weeks, applied to petitioners' cases. HPSC to reassess them post-report; if they qualify relaxed thresholds, recommend appointment pronto.

Broader ripple: Punjab, Haryana, Chandigarh Chief Secretaries to craft RPWD-compliant instructions for all future recruitments, with 3-month compliance affidavits. No more cherry-picking instructions or vacant PwD posts.

This ruling fortifies PwD inclusion, ensuring reservations mean real opportunities—not illusory quotas—potentially reshaping state recruitments nationwide.