Candidate Fit for Accounts Service Cannot Be Declared Unfit for RAS for Sub-40% Disability: Rajasthan High Court

The petitioner, who has congenital nystagmus, ranked 360th in the RAS Examination, 1999 but was declared medically unfit for the RAS and allied services; an interim order of 03.09.2001 kept one post vacant for him in the Co-operative Subordinate Service (paras 3, 6). His visual impairment was assessed at less than 20%, below the benchmark for reservation (paras 4-5). In the 2003 examination he ranked 21st in the general category; Medical Boards again found him unfit (paras 7-8, 37.3). The candidate ranked 22nd joined the RAS on 21.04.2006, and he was allocated the Rajasthan Accounts Service the next day (paras 37.4, 53.1). The State pleaded Medical Board primacy, no reservation claim and estoppel (paras 29-31).

The Court found the petitioner excluded from the general category for functional limitations and from the reserved category for not reaching 40% disability, a "constructive exclusion" (para 36). The Medical Boards recorded no satisfactory rationale for unfitness (para 37.2), while the State itself found him fit for the Accounts Service (paras 37.5, 40). The 1975 Guidelines classify both services as non-technical, so treating them differently lacked intelligible differentia under E.P. Royappa (paras 41-42). Following the Division Bench in ONGC v. Ranjan Tak, persons with less than 40% disability cannot be excluded merely for lacking a benchmark disability (paras 43-44). Two decades of 'Outstanding' and 'Very Good' ACRs negated the claim of unsuitability for field posts (paras 39, 45), and candidates with benchmark disabilities had been appointed to the IAS and RAS from 2005 to 2007 (paras 46, 49). Denying the less disabled while accommodating the more disabled offends Articles 14, 16 and 21 (para 48). Estoppel failed because he challenged the denial throughout (para 51).