PwD Candidate's Eligibility Depends on Specific Disability Identified for the Post Under Sec 32 & 33 of PwD Act, 1995: Orissa High Court - 2025-09-06

Orissa High Court Upholds OPSC Decision, Rules PwD Candidate's Eligibility is Tied to Specific Post Identification

Cuttack: In a significant ruling on disability reservation in public employment, the Orissa High Court has held that a candidate's eligibility for a post reserved for Persons with Disabilities (PwD) is contingent on their specific disability being identified as suitable for that particular post by the government. The Court set aside a Single Judge's order that had directed the appointment of a low-vision candidate to the post of Assistant Agriculture Engineer.

The division bench, comprising Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo , allowed the appeal filed by the Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC), reinforcing the primacy of the government's expert committee findings under Sections 32 and 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) Act, 1995.

Background of the Case

The case originated from a writ petition filed by Biswajit Panda, a candidate with a 40% low-vision disability. He had applied for the post of Assistant Agriculture Engineer (Group-B) under the PwD category, pursuant to an advertisement issued by the OPSC in 2019. While his application was initially accepted, he was not called for the viva voce test.

Following interim orders from the High Court, Mr. Panda was allowed to appear for the viva voce, but his result was withheld. A learned Single Judge, in a judgment dated May 1, 2023, directed the OPSC to declare Mr. Panda as a selected candidate, noting that two of the five posts reserved for PwD candidates were vacant and that individuals with low vision had been considered eligible in a previous recruitment drive in 2014-15. The OPSC challenged this decision, leading to the present appeal.

Arguments from Both Sides

Odisha Public Service Commission (Appellant): The OPSC argued that the advertisement for the post explicitly listed the categories of disabilities suitable for the role, which included "one leg affected," "partially deaf," and others, but did not include "blindness or low vision." This specification was based on a comprehensive exercise undertaken by the Odisha Government, culminating in a notification dated December 3, 2013. This notification, issued under Section 32 of the PwD Act, 1995, identified specific posts suitable for different categories of disabilities after detailed deliberations by an expert committee. The OPSC contended that judicial interference with this expert-driven, conscious policy decision was unwarranted.

Biswajit Panda (Respondent): Counsel for Mr. Panda argued that the 2013 notification's clause on "physical requirement," which included "seeing" (SE), should be interpreted to allow his candidature. It was also contended that another clause in the notification allowed appointing authorities to consider PwD candidates for non-identified posts if the physical requirements could be met. The fact that two PwD-reserved posts remained vacant further strengthened his claim for appointment.

Court’s Analysis and Legal Precedents

The High Court meticulously analyzed the statutory framework of the PwD Act, 1995, particularly Sections 32 and 33. These sections empower the government to first identify suitable posts for persons with disabilities and then reserve a percentage of vacancies for them.

The bench emphasized that the 2013 notification was a result of a "vigorous exercise" by an expert committee. Justice Sahoo, writing for the bench, noted:

"It had all the features of institutional decision making by committee of experts which has to be dealt with deference by Courts... Now, this Court cannot act as an appellate authority of the committee as notified under sections 32 and 33 of the Act, 1955 to apply any subjective/objective scrutiny."

The Court heavily relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Ajay Kumar Pandey vs. State of U.P. (2023) , which held that once an appropriate government identifies specific posts for certain disabilities, a candidate cannot claim appointment if their disability category is not included for that post.

Applying this principle, the bench stated:

"Drawing a parallel... the irresistible conclusion has to be and is to hold that the respondent is not eligible for appointment against the post of Assistant Agriculture Engineer in terms of the advertisement. The Government of Odisha notification dated 03.12.2013 being statutory... has to be read along with the advertisement."

Final Judgment and Implications

The High Court allowed the OPSC's appeal, setting aside the Single Judge's order and dismissing Mr. Panda's original writ petition. The Court concluded that while Mr. Panda is a person with a disability, his specific disability (low vision) had not been identified as suitable for the post of Assistant Agriculture Engineer by the expert committee. The mere existence of a vacancy in the PwD quota does not entitle a candidate to be appointed if they do not meet the specific eligibility criteria identified for that role.

This judgment clarifies that reservation for PwD candidates is not a blanket provision for all posts. Instead, it is a structured process where the government, guided by experts, determines which disabilities are compatible with the functional requirements of each job, and courts should exercise restraint in interfering with such specialized assessments.