Judgment Intelligence
Petition AllowedShalini Savita v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
2024:RJ-JP:4038
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9974/2023
- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 17 January 2024
- Bench
- Justice Sameer Jain
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 — Sections 33, 34; Rajasthan Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2018 — Rules 5, 6; Central Government notification of 24.08.2022 amending the notification of 04.01.2021 (Note 10)
Final Outcome
Petition allowed: the Court found no reason to deny the relief prayed for (paras 8, 10). Respondent No. 1 must pay her Rs. 50,000 costs within three months, failing which 10% simple interest runs, recoverable from the officers responsible for the delay (para 9).
Key holdings
- Spinal deformity or spinal injury without neurological or limb dysfunction falls within locomotor disability under the 24.08.2022 notification (paras 5-6).
- A State order listing eligible disabilities that ignores the 2022 amendment disregards the updated law and cannot be sustained (paras 5, 7).
- Once the Centre recognises the disability, its absence from the advertisement or the State order is no ground to refuse the candidate (paras 5, 8).
- Rs. 50,000 costs were imposed on the State for forcing the candidate to litigate a point already settled in her favour (para 9).
Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
Advertisement No. 02/2023 for the post of Ayurved Medical Officer confined the specially abled category to the benchmark disabilities OA/OL (para 2). The petitioner has a locomotor disability arising from a congenital spinal deformity, about 44% permanent according to her counsel (paras 2, 5). Her candidature was not considered because spinal deformity was not mentioned in the State Government's order of 04.04.2023 (paras 3, 5). She asked the Court to direct that "Spine Locomotor Disability" be added to the advertisement, that her application be accepted and that she be allowed to appear as a physically handicapped candidate (para 1). Her counsel relied on the 2018 Rules, the 2016 Act and the notification of 24.08.2022 (paras 2.3-2.4).
Court's Findings
It was undisputed that the petitioner suffers from locomotor disability; the only reason for not considering her was that her disability was not in the advertisement or the order of 04.04.2023 (para 5). That order, passed by the committee formed under Rule 6 of the 2018 Rules, considered the Centre's notification of 04.01.2021 but ignored its amendment of 24.08.2022 (para 5). The amendment, made under Section 33 of the 2016 Act, inserted Note 10: Spinal Deformity (SD) and Spinal Injury (SI) without associated neurological or limb dysfunction form a separate sub-category of locomotor disability, in addition to OA, OL, BA, BL, OAL, BLOA and BLA, and all identified posts stand identified as suitable for them (para 5). An Office Memorandum of 07.09.2022 repeated this (para 6). The State Government had failed to consider the change in law, so its order "cannot be countenanced" (para 7). Since the Centre itself recognises such spinal conditions as locomotor disability, there was "no reason whatsoever" to deny the petitioner's prayer (para 8). Because she was forced to approach the Court although the law was settled in her favour, and State functionaries were unaware of the updated law, she had to be compensated (para 9).
Legal Principle
Since the Centre's notification of 24.08.2022, spinal deformity or spinal injury without associated neurological or limb dysfunction is a sub-category of locomotor disability, and every identified post is suitable for such persons. A State order on eligible disabilities for a recruitment that ignores this amendment disregards the updated law and cannot stand (paras 5-8).
