Judgment Intelligence
Petition DismissedState of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Manish Chauhan & Anr.
2024:RJ-JD:6908-DB
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 453/2023
- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 9 February 2024
- Bench
- Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Munnuri Laxman
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 — Sections 34, 57, 58; Rajasthan Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2018 — Rule 5; Constitution of India — Article 16(2)
Final Outcome
The State's special appeal was dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000 payable to the respondent-writ petitioner. The Single Judge's order of 9 January 2023, which directed his appointment with all notional benefits, needed no interference (paras 5, 23-24).
Key holdings
- Neither the 2016 Act nor the Rajasthan Rules of 2018 bars a candidate from another State from claiming a disability-reserved post (para 16).
- A disability certificate issued by a competent authority of any State has pan-India effect under Section 58(3) (paras 17-19).
- Section 57 does not prevent giving pan-India effect to a validly issued certificate, whose validity was not disputed here (para 20).
- Denial of disability reservation on the ground of residence violates Article 16(2); a domicile rule cannot be applied in vacuum (para 21).
- Appeal dismissed with Rs. 10,000 costs payable to the candidate (para 24).
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
Manish Chauhan applied for the single Assistant Professor (Mathematics) post, advertised on 18.12.2020 and reserved for the Hearing Impaired (HI) category of persons with disabilities. He passed, and the Rajasthan Public Service Commission recommended him, but the State refused to appoint him (para 3). It claimed that giving him the reservation would hurt persons with disabilities in Rajasthan (para 4). On 9 January 2023 a Single Judge held the denial constitutionally impermissible and directed his appointment with all notional benefits (paras 2, 5). In appeal, the State said he was not domiciled in Rajasthan and that, under Section 57, his appropriate Government was his native State, so his certificate from another State was not accepted (paras 7-8).
Court's Findings
The Bench asked whether a disabled candidate otherwise entitled to a reserved post can be denied it only because he is a native of another State (para 11). Section 34 of the 2016 Act obliges every appropriate Government to reserve not less than 4% of vacancies for persons with benchmark disabilities, and Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Rules of 2018 gives effect to that mandate (paras 12-15). Neither contains any provision denying the benefit to a qualified, meritorious candidate from another State (para 16). Under Section 58(3), a certificate of disability is valid across the country, and its holder must be recognised in public employment everywhere; denial for being native of another State is outside the scheme of the Act and the Rules (paras 17-19). Section 57 is no impediment to that effect; the certificate's validity was undisputed; his native State was the only reason for the denial (para 20). Such discrimination also offends Article 16(2), which bars discrimination based on place of residence, and no law confining these posts to Rajasthan residents was shown (para 21). Clause (8) of the advertisement accepted certificates from any State (para 22). The denial was unconstitutional and illegal (para 23).
Legal Principle
A certificate of disability issued under Section 58 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is valid across the country. An otherwise eligible, meritorious candidate with a benchmark disability cannot be denied a post reserved for persons with disabilities merely because he is a native of another State; such denial offends Article 16(2) (paras 18-21, 23).
