Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Dr.Deva Ram Shivran vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 25 April, 2025

Author:
Sameer Jain

Bench:
Sameer Jain

[2025:RJ-JP:16526]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4343/2001
Dr. Deva Ram Shivran, aged about 31 years, Son of Shri Laxman
Ram Shivran, resident of Raghunandanpura, Post Mundoti, Via
Phulera, District Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary to the
Government, Department of Personnel, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur through its Superintendent.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3500/2006
Dr. Deva Ram Shivran, aged about 36 years, Son of Shri Laxman
Ram Shivran, resident of Raghunandanpura, Post Mundoti, Via
Jobjer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary to the
Government, Department of Personnel, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Mr. Hemant Swaroop Mathur through Secretary, Department
of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma with
Mr.Avi Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC with
Mr.Prakhar Jain
Mr.Rahul Verma
Ms.Anjali Sharma

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
Reserved On :: 05/03/2025

Pronounced on :: 25/04/2025

REPORTABLE :

"I wish I had been more disabled -- then perhaps the system

would have seen me."

(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:07:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (2 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]

These words reflect not a wish for greater suffering, but

a bitter irony -- that in the rigid, checkbox-driven machinery of

the State's welfare framework, a person's lived experience of

disability may fall through the cracks. In a system meant to uplift

the disadvantaged, the petitioner stands at a paradox: disabled,

yet not disabled enough to be seen.

1. Considering the interwoven and identical set of facts

and legal issues framed and put-forth the present petitions were

tagged and are henceforth adjudicated vide this common

judgment, with consent of the counsel representing the parties, in

both the petitions.

2. Before proceeding to examine the present petitions on

their merits, it is imperative to first delineate the foundational

facts and the core issues arising therein. A precise appreciation of

the factual matrix and procedural background is essential to

contextualize the grievances of the petitioners and the legal

questions that fall for adjudication. The salient aspects of the

petitions are, therefore, summarized as under:

In SBCWP No. 4343/2001 :-

3. The petitioner appeared in the Rajasthan Administrative

Services Examination, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'RAS'

Examination) and secured an overall merit rank of 360. However,

during the course of the post-examination formalities, the

petitioner was subjected to a medical examination by the

competent Medical Board. Upon assessment, the petitioner was

declared medically unfit for appointment to the Rajasthan

(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:07:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (3 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]

Administrative Service and its allied services on account of a visual

impairment diagnosed as Congenital Nystagmus (CN).

4. Congenital Nystagmus is an ocular motor disorder of

uncertain etiology, typically manifesting at birth or in early infancy.

It is clinically characterized by involuntary, rhythmic oscillations of

the eyes, which may affect visual acuity and ocular stability.

Despite the said diagnosis, the petitioner's visual impairment, as

assessed, was less than 20%, thereby falling below the minimum

threshold required to qualify as a benchmark disability under

applicable norms.

5. Specifically, in accordance with the criteria laid down in

the relevant notification issued by the Union Public Service

Commission (UPSC) for the Civil Services Examination (CSE), the

petitioner was classified under Category 0, with corrected visual

acuity in the better eye recorded between 6/9 to 6/18, and in the

worse eye between 6/24 to 6/36. As such, the petitioner was not

considered eligible either under the general category (due to

medical unfitness) or under the reserved category for persons with

benchmark disabilities (due to non-qualification of the 40%

disability threshold).

6. During the pendency and adjudication of the present

writ petition, this Court, by way of an interim order dated

03.09.2001, had granted protective relief in favor of the petitioner.

Vide the said interim direction, it was ordered that one seat in the

Rajasthan Co-operative Subordinate Service -- Inspector Grade II

be kept reserved and vacant for the petitioner, subject to the final

outcome of the writ proceedings.

(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:07:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (4 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]

In SBCWP No. 3500/2006 :-

7. The petitioner, pursuant to his candidature in the

Rajasthan Administrative Services Examination, 2003, secured an

overall merit position at Rank 21. Notwithstanding such

commendable performance, the petitioner was appointed to the

Rajasthan Accounts Service instead of the Rajasthan

Administrative Service (RAS), albeit the fact that both services are

categorically classified as non-technical in nature under the

prevailing Medical Examination Instructions issued by the

Government of Rajasthan in the year 1975.

8. Pursuant to the declaration of results and in accordance

with the post-examination protocol, the petitioner was subjected

to a medical examination on 14.11.2005. The Medical Board, upon

evaluation, declared the petitioner unfit for appointment to the

RAS cadre on account of his pre-existing condition of Congenital

Nystagmus (CN). Aggrieved by this determination, the petitioner

submitted a formal representation seeking reconsideration of the

medical opinion. In response, the petitioner was re-examined by

the Medical Board on 02.01.2006. However, the subsequent

medical opinion merely reiterated the prior conclusion of unfitness

without furnishing any cogent reasons or objective justification for

the adverse finding.

9. It is pertinent to highlight that notwithstanding the

petitioner's superior merit position at Rank 21, the respondents

proceeded to appoint the next candidate in order of merit, one Ms.

Prabha Gautam, who secured Rank 22, to the Rajasthan

Administrative Service cadre. In contrast, the petitioner was

(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:07:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (5 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]

appointed to the Rajasthan Accounts Service. It is a matter of

record that the petitioner has, since his appointment, continuously

served in the Rajasthan Accounts Service for a period of

approximately two decades and has discharged his official duties

with utmost diligence, integrity, and to the unqualified satisfaction

of his superior officers.

SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE

PETITIONER :-

10. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the petitioner had consistently demonstrated

academic excellence and commitment to public service throughout

his educational and professional career. In the year 1989, the

petitioner qualified the Senior Secondary Examination with

71.60% marks from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan,

Ajmer. Thereafter, in 1993, he completed his graduation from

Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner, securing 71.60% marks

and attaining the third position in the University merit list. The

petitioner further qualified the National Eligibility Test (NET) in his

first attempt in 1995 and subsequently completed his M.Sc. in

Agriculture (Agronomy) in 1996 from the RAU University, Bikaner

with distinction, being awarded a gold medal for his academic

performance. Demonstrating his continued dedication to academic

pursuits, the petitioner re-qualified the NET examination in the

years 1997 and 1998. In 1999, he appeared in the Rajasthan

Administrative Services (RAS/RTS) Examination and successfully

cleared all stages, securing the 360th rank in the final merit.

Subsequently, in the RAS Examination conducted in 2003, the

(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:07:14 PM)

[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (6 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]

petitioner improved his performance significantly and secured an

overall rank of 21, reflecting his consistent and meritorious

academic and competitive examination record.

11. It was further submitted that the petitioner despite

being a meritorious candidate, is repeatedly subjected to arbitrary

and discriminatory treatment by the respondent authorities,

resulting in denial of rightful appointment in the Rajasthan

Administrative Service (RAS), despite his better performance and

ranking in the merit list. Thence, the petitioner seeks appropriate

relief for the infringement of his fundamental and legal rights. It

was then apprised to the Court that on 05.07.2001, the petitioner

was declared medically unfit for appointment to the RAS on

account of the pre-existing condition termed Congenital

Nystagmus. Nonetheless, the said declaration was made without

affording the petitioner any meaningful opportunity of clarification

or recourse. Thereafter, on 31.07.2001, upon the petitioner's

request, a re-medical examination was conducted by the duly

constituted Medical Board. However, the petitioner was again

declared medically unfit. In this regard, it was submitted that the

said medical report was not supplied to him despite repeated

requests, thereby denying him access to a vital document

affecting his career and right to employment.

12. Consequentially, the petitioner was constrained to

approach this Court and had filed SB Civil Writ Petition No.

4343/2001 (Dr. Deva Ram Shivram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.),

wherein the petitioner challenged the denial of appointment solely

on the basis of medical unfitness sans taking note of the merit

(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:07:14 PM)

[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (7 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]

scored by the petitioner, which he contended to be arbitrary,

without justification, and in violation of the principles of natural

justice.

13. It was averred that in the year 2003, the Rajasthan

Public Service Commission (RPSC) issued a fresh advertisement

for the RAS/RTS Examination, 2003 for filling various posts in the

State and sub-ordinate services. The petitioner, determined to

serve the State, once again participated in the said competitive

examination. The petitioner cleared all the stages of the

examination with distinction and secured an overall 21 st rank in

the general merit category. It is crucial to note that the petitioner

did not avail of any benefit of reservation under the physically

handicapped category, as he did not possess a disability certificate

qualifying him for such classification. Further, vide communication

dated 05.07.2003, the office of the Commissioner (Disabilities)

informed the petitioner that he had less than 20% disability and

hence was ineligible to be issued a disability certificate for availing

benefits under the physically handicapped category. The said

communication is on record as Annexure-8.

14. Thereafter, the petitioner was once again called for a

medical examination on 14.11.2005. However, to the petitioner's

grave prejudice, he was yet again declared medically unfit on

account of defective vision, without any substantial deviation in

the medical opinion or a detailed consideration of the nature of the

duties to be performed under the RAS cadre. Being aggrieved, the

petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 10.12.2005

before the then Hon'ble Chief Minister and other competent

(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:07:14 PM)

[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (8 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]

authorities seeking review of the adverse medical opinion and

consideration for service allocation (Annexure-10 in SBCWP

No.3500/2006). In response, a Medical Board was re-constituted

and the petitioner underwent a subsequent medical examination

on 02.01.2006. However, the outcome of this exercise was once

again unfavorable and remained consistent with the previous

opinion, without providing the petitioner any benefit of doubt or

reasonable accommodation.

15. It was sequentially argued that on 21.04.2006, a

candidate namely Ms. Prabha Gautam, who stood 22 nd i.e. next in

the merit list and a rank lower to the petitioner, was appointed to

the RAS cadre service along with other candidates, while the

petitioner stood excluded without being provided any valid or

reasoned justification. It was further submitted that on the very

next day, i.e. on 22.04.2006, the Government, invoking its powers

of discretion and purported excellence, appointed the petitioner

not to the RAS cadre service, but to the Rajasthan Accounts

Service, despite the fact that both the services were classified

under the "non-technical category" under the relevant recruitment

guidelines framed and issued by the Government of Rajasthan,

Department of Personnel (Group II) in the year 1975

(hereinafter referred to as 'guidelines of 1975'). Therefore, it

can be deduced that this act of appointing the petitioner to a

service other than the one earned on merit, and lower in

preference, without any objective rationale, is arbitrary,

unjustified, and violative of the fundamental rights of the

(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:07:14 PM)

[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (9 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]

petitioner as enshrined under the provisions of
Articles 14
and
of the Constitution of India.

16. It was also apprised to the Court that as per the

Instructions for Medical Examination dated 01.01.1975 bearing

No. F.15(1)DOP/A-II/74-I while holding that a candidate is not fit

according to the norms laid down in those guidelines i.e.

Guidelines of 1975, it would be permissible for a Medical Board to

recommend to Government of Rajasthan for reasons specifically

recorded in writing that the candidate in question may be

admitted to the service without any disadvantage to the State

government. At the same time, by the said guidelines it was made

unambiguous that it is to be noted that the question is one of the

likelihood of continuous service and the rejection of a candidate

need not be advised on account of the presence of a defect which

is only a small proportion of cases, if found to interfere with

continuous effect of service.

17. In these circumstances, the petitioner was left with no

alternative remedy but to approach this Court once again by filing

the a writ petition in 2006 (connected herein), seeking appropriate

directions for appointment in the Rajasthan Administrative Service

in accordance with his merit, and to set aside the medical

unfitness findings as being unreasoned and arbitrary.

Nevertheless, the continued exclusion of the petitioner from the

RAS cadre service, despite demonstrable merit and in absence of

any sustainable medical disqualification, is violative of his

fundamental rights and liable to be set.

(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:07:14 PM)

[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (10 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]

18. In view of the factual background already submitted

before the Court, it was reiterated that the petitioner is an

academically distinguished and professionally accomplished

individual who has consistently demonstrated merit, competence,

and administrative capability throughout his career. Learned

counsel submitted that the petitioner is a Gold Medalist in M.Sc.

(Agronomy), conferred by a recognized university, and his

achievements in academics are reflective of his cognitive and

professional abilities. It was submitted that such academic

excellence negates any presumptive inference of incapability in

discharging administrative duties under the RAS cadre.

Nevertheless, the petitioner holds a 'B' Certificate of the National

Cadet Corps (NCC) and has qualified the National Eligibility Test

(NET), in addition to publishing 15 peer-reviewed research papers

and authoring a book titled "Agronomic Terminology", published by

the Indian Society of Agronomy, IARI, New Delhi. These

accomplishments substantiate the petitioner's intellectual and

administrative acumen.

19. Moreover, despite being diagnosed with Congenital

Nystagmus, the petitioner has continuously served in various

high-responsibility public positions inter alia, Treasury Officer,

Chief Accounts Officer, Assistant General Manager (Medical

Services), Comptroller of Sri Karan Narendra Agricultural

University, Officer on Special Duty (Revenue Mobilization), Jaipur

Development Authority, Accounts Officer, Tribal Area Development

(TAD) Department, Jaipur, Accounts Officer, Jila Parishad Nagaur

and has also undergone training at the prestigious Harishchandra

(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:07:14 PM)

[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (11 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]

Mathur Rajasthan Institute of Public Administration (HCM RIPA).

At no point the petitioner has faced any impairment which

obstructed the efficient performance of his official duties, nor has

any adverse report been recorded against him in this regard in the

ACRs qua him over the years.

20. In light of the above averred achievements, it was

submitted that the petitioner has demonstrated consistent

administrative and professional excellence, and any inference

drawn solely from a minor physical condition is wholly unjustified,

unreasonable, and contrary to established constitutional and

statutory safeguards.

21. Unfolding the arguments further, learned counsel had

averred that the petitioner has successfully qualified all stages of

the RAS Examination 2003 and secured 21 st rank in the general

category merit list, having undergone the same rigorous

competitive process as other candidates. Thus, the denial of

appointment despite high merit is a manifest violation of
Articles
and
of the Constitution of India, which guarantee equality of

opportunity in public employment. The RAS recruitment process is

merit-centric. The petitioner being placed well within the range of

selected candidates, ought to be appointed to the RAS cadre.

Instead, a lower-ranked candidate (Rank 22) was appointed,

thereby evidencing invidious discrimination.

22. Nevertheless, from a rational thinking it can be inferred

that the action of respondents defies all logic and reasoning as

while a person suffering from 40% benchmark disability is eligible

for appointment against the post in question, under the physically

(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:07:14 PM)

[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (12 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]

handicapped category, a candidate with a lesser degree of

disability, like the case of the petitioner, and is treated as

medically unfit. Such a candidate may not be entitled to the

benefit of reservation under the physically handicapped category,

yet the statutory declaration clearly indicates that the petitioner's

condition does not disqualify him.

23. The petitioner was not suffering from a benchmark

disability, as defined under Section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons

with
Disabilities Act, 2016
(hereinafter referred to as the

Act of 2016), i.e., a disability of 40% or more. In fact, the

Disability Commissioner, vide communication dated 05.07.2003,

certified that the petitioner had less than 20% disability, thereby

disqualifying him from availing any reservation but simultaneously

being unreasonably excluded from general selection. For the sake

of handiness the said definition is reproduced herein below:

(r) "person with benchmark disability" means
a person with not less than forty per cent. of a
specified disability where specified disability has
not been defined in measurable terms and
includes a person with disability where specified
disability has been defined in measurable terms,
as certified by the certifying authority;

24. The action of the respondent authorities in denying

appointment to the RAS cadre, while offering placement in the

Rajasthan Accounts Service (also a non-technical service under

the Guidelines of 1975), is arbitrary and irrational, violating the

Doctrine of Reasonableness as enunciated under the provisions of

Article 14
of the Constitution of India and the fundamental rights

of the petitioner as enshrined under
Article 21
of the same.

Likewise, the denial of service on medical grounds, despite

(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:07:14 PM)

[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (13 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]

medical fitness for equivalent posts, amounts to hostile

discrimination and violates the spirit and objectives of the

Guidelines of 1975, which govern classification of services as

technical or non-technical and appointment thereto and
Sections
and
, of the Act of 2016 which mandate non-discrimination

in public employment and equal opportunities.

25. Subsequently, it was contended that ever since 2005,

the Union Public Service Commission and Central Government are

appointing physically challenged candidates with benchmark

disabilities in the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) cadre. By

2008, the State of Rajasthan itself had implemented similar

practices in the RAS cadre; moreso, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

and various High Courts have laid down in a catena of decisions

that meritorious candidates with lesser or non-benchmark

disabilities must not be excluded from appointment solely on

medical grounds if they are otherwise capable of discharging the

functions required.

26. The petitioner is consistently rated as "Outstanding" or

"Very Good" in his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) over the

last 20 years of government service, his official record further

affirms that there is no hindrance or barrier arising from his

physical condition. Thus, excluding the petitioner from

consideration due to a disability that is less than the threshold for

even claiming reservation reflects a flawed system, forcing

meritorious persons into an unjust dilemma -- to be "more

disabled" to qualify for equitable treatment. This ironical and

(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:07:14 PM)

[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (14 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]

unjust position violates both human dignity and equal protection

under law.

27. In support of the contentions noted hereinabove, and to

conclude the stance taken, learned counsel had placed reliance

upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. & Anr. v. Ranjan Tak &

Anr., DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 953/2023, decided

on 29.11.2024, wherein in similar circumstances, the Court

directed appointment of a meritorious candidate with 30%

disability in recognition of their capabilities and in light of the

principles enshrined in the Act of 2016.

SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE

RESPONDENTS :-

28. Per contra, learned Additional Government Counsel

appearing for the respondent-State, has strenuously opposed the

reliefs sought in the writ petition and had raised the following legal

and factual contentions:

29. Non-Claim of Reservation under Disability

Category: It was submitted that the petitioner had not, at any

stage, claimed consideration under the reserved category for

persons with disabilities and in the absence of such a claim, the

petitioner cannot subsequently assert any right to reservation

under the physically handicapped category. It is a well-settled

principle that rights flowing from a reserved category cannot be

extended to a candidate who has not claimed such benefit at the

relevant time. The law does not permit retrospective accrual of

(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:07:14 PM)

[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (15 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]

such benefit where no foundational claim has been made in the

application or during the selection process.

30. Medical Ineligibility and Supremacy of Medical

Board Opinion: It was further contended that, in accordance with

the prevailing rules and the medical guidelines operative at the

relevant time, the petitioner was declared medically unfit and

unsuitable for the RAS cadre on a recurring basis by the duly

constituted Medical Board. As per Rules 19 and 20 of the

Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct

Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examinations)

Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1999),

fitness as determined by the Medical Board is a mandatory

eligibility criterion. The petitioner, being declared unfit, does not

possess any vested right to seek appointment in the RAS cadre.

Moreover, the consistent view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is

that the opinion of the Medical Board must be accorded primacy in

service matters concerning physical fitness.
In support of the

contentions noted hereinabove, learned counsel had placed

reliance upon the ratio encapsulated in No.14666828M Ex CNF

Narsingh Yadav v. Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No.

7672/2019;
Om Prakash Singh v. Union of India & Ors.,

Civil Appeal No.
5655/2010; Shri Munna Singh v. Union of

India & Ors., Writ Petition No. 316/2020;
D.K. Trivedi &

Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
, (1986) Supp.

SCC 20;

Raojibhai Jivabhai Patel & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
,

(1989) Supp.
(2) SCC 744; State of Rajasthan & Ors. v.

Sunita, DB Special Appeal Writ No. 572/2023; decided by the

(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:07:14 PM)

[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (16 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]

Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, vide order dated 31.08.2024,

along with other connected appeals.

31. Doctrine of Estoppel and Acquiescence: It was

further submitted that, in view of the petitioner's medical

ineligibility, the respondent-State, in exercise of its discretionary

powers, considered the case of the petitioner with sensitivity and

granted him appointment in the Rajasthan Accounts Service on

humanitarian grounds. The petitioner, having accepted such

appointment without protest or demur, is now estopped from

challenging the said appointment. The doctrine of estoppel by

conduct and the principle of acquiescence bar the petitioner from

seeking any alternate appointment or claiming elevation to the

RAS cadre.

32. Qua the issue of non-Challenge to Rules and Guidelines

learned counsel had pointed out that the petitioner had neither

challenged the validity of the guidelines of the year 1975 nor the

relevant rules and guidelines that govern recruitment and fitness

for appointment. In the absence of such a challenge, the

petitioner's claim remains unsustainable in law. Moreso, a

statutory rule or government order carries the presumption of

legality and must be complied with unless declared ultra vires by a

competent court. It was further submitted that, as clarified

through the affidavits of the Chief Secretary and the Principal

Secretary, the reservation or selection of candidates with

disabilities for RAS and IAS services began only during the period

2005-2007. Prior to that, no such reservation existed. Despite

this, the petitioner was favorably considered and accommodated

(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:07:14 PM)

[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (17 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]

based on his meritorious record and positive performance

feedback, demonstrating the State's leniency and empathetic

approach. However, such a one-time exception cannot be

converted into a precedent or a matter of right. Therefore, it can

be inferred that no vested right to employment in a particular

cadre is created by the appointment so granted to the petitioner in

the Rajasthan Account Service cadre.

33. Lastly, it was argued that employment in a particular

cadre or service, especially in posts such as RAS, is not a matter

of right but subject to fulfilling statutory criteria, including medical

fitness. The discretionary power exercised by the State in offering

alternate suitable employment is within its domain and cannot be

converted into an enforceable legal right by the petitioner.

34. In view of the aforementioned submissions, learned

Additional Government Counsel has prayed for the dismissal of the

writ petition, stating that no case is made out for judicial

interference. The action of the respondent-State is well within the

bounds of law, reason, and administrative discretion.

DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS :-

35. Having heard the rival arguments advanced by the

learned counsel for both the parties, upon a perusal of the

material available on record, more specifically the erstwhile ACRs

of the petitioner, scanning the judgments cited at the Bar and

juxtaposing the contentions noted herein above, this Court at the

outset is of the view that the Indian Constitution enshrines

justice -- social, economic, and political -- as a core ideal of

the Preamble. India's model of governance is that of a welfare

(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:07:14 PM)

[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (18 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]

state, where the State bears a solemn duty to protect the

interests of its vulnerable and marginalized populations.
Article 41

as enshrined in the Directive Principles of State Policy, of the

Constitution of India further obligates the State to secure "the

right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of

unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement." In this

context, the Act of 2016, is a manifestation of India's commitment

to equality and dignity for all persons with disabilities. It mandates

non-discrimination in employment (
Section 20
), reasonable

accommodation, and reservation in government posts.

36. Yet in the matter in hand, the petitioner despite being

meritorious, qualified, and aspiring was denied consideration for a

RAS cadre services not because he is able, but because his

disability is not "sufficiently severe" to meet the technical

threshold for reservation. Thus, he is excluded from both the

general category, due to functional limitations, and from the

reserved category, due to not meeting the 40% disability

threshold. This leads to a tragic administrative blind spot, a form

of constructive exclusion wherein, the petitioner is neither "abled"

nor "disabled enough" to benefit from the system. The legal

framework, intended to be inclusive, becomes ironically

exclusionary. Hence the grief behind the statement: "I wish I had

been more disabled." It is not a rejection of self, but a damning

critique of a system that values percentage points over real

barriers, and checkboxes over capability. It calls into question

whether the State is truly seeing its citizens, or merely scanning

(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:07:14 PM)

[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (19 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]

them for conformity to pre-set categories under the garb of

empathy and consideration.

37. Consequentially, it is apposite to jot down certain

undisputed facts of the present petitions:

37.1 That it is an admitted position that the petitioner

suffers from low vision and is diagnosed with Congenital

Nystagmus.

37.2 That the medical records dated 14 th March, 2001, 31st

July, 2001, 1st December, 2005, and 6th January, 2006 including

the re-examination and re-medical assessments, consistently

conclude that the petitioner is "unfit for RAS, allied services due to

defective vision." However, no satisfactory justification of rationale

behind the said opinion is noted by the concerned experts.

37.3 That the petitioner had successfully qualified all stages

of the Rajasthan Administrative Services Examination conducted in

the year 1999 and was placed at 360 th position in the overall merit

list. Subsequently, in the RAS Examinations held in the years 2001

and 2003, the petitioner once again qualified all stages and

secured a significantly improved 21st rank in the merit list. The

petitioner, in both the Rajasthan Administrative Services (RAS)

Examinations conducted in the years 1999 and 2003, had

appeared under the 'general category' and not under any reserved

category, despite being eligible for Other Backward Classes (OBC)

reservation and having a known medical condition of low vision.

Notably, the petitioner successfully secured 360 th and 21st

positions in the final merit list, respectively, which reflects his

academic and competitive merit beyond any reservation benefit.

(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:07:14 PM)

[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (20 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]

37.4 That one Ms. Prabha Gautam, who secured the 22 nd

rank in the said merit list, was appointed to the RAS cadre service.

In contrast, the petitioner, despite attaining the 21 st rank, was

initially excluded from appointment by an order dated 21.04.2006.

However, upon consideration of the petitioner's representation and

pursuant to directions issued by the office of the Hon'ble Chief

Minister, the petitioner was subsequently allocated to the

Rajasthan Accounts Service on 22.04.2006. The relevant extract

from the reply to the petitioner's representation is reiterated

hereinbelow:

"fVIi.kh ¼dzfed½
dkfeZd ¼d&1½ foHkkx
fo'k;%& Jh nsokjke f"kojku] vH;FkhZ dks jktLFkku jkT; ,oa v/khuLFk lsok,sa
la;qDr izfr;ksxh ijh{kk ds ifj.kke ds mijkar n`f'V ijh{k.k ds ekin.Mksa dk
Interpretation djkus ds mijkUr lsok vkoUVu djus ckcr~A
d`i;k Jh jktiky flag ;kno] fo"ks'kkf/kdkjh] eq[;ea=h }kjk "kklu lfpo]
dkfeZd foHkkx dks izsf'kr v"kkldh; Vhi fnukad 2-1-2006 dk voyksdu
20@lh ij djsaA mDr Vhi esa jkT; iz"kklfud lsok ds fy, xfBr
fpfdRlh; cksMZ ds n`f'V ijh{k.k ds ekun.Mksa dk vFkZ yxokus ds lEcU/k esa
Jh nsokjke f"kojku ds izdj.k dk ijh{k.k djkrs gq, rF;kRed fVIi.kh Hkstus
ds funsZ"k fn;s x;s FksA eq[;ea=h dk;kZy; dks ;g voxr djk fn;k x;k fd
jktLFkku jkT; ,oa v/khuLFk lsok,a la;qDr izfr;ksxh ijh{kk] 2003 ds ek/;e
ls p;fur vH;FkhZ Jh nsokjke f"kojku esfjV ua- 21 ¼vuqdzekad 543467½ dks
fu;qfDr fn;s tkus ls iwoZ LokLF; ijh{k.k djok;s tkus ds fy, fnukad 14-11-
2005 dks i= ¼i`'B 6@lh½ izsf'kr fd;k x;kA Jh f"kojku dk LokLF; ijh{k.k
fnukad 1-12-2005 dks gksuk r; fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk Jh f"kojku dks iqu% 19-
12-2005 dks ikap vU; vH;fFkZ;ksa ds lkFk LokLF; ijh{k.k gsrq cqyk;k x;kA
ckn esa ;g ijh{k.k tuojh] 2006 ds izFke lIrkg esa lEikfnr fd;k x;kA
iqu% LokLF; ijh{k.k djok;s tkus ij Hkh Jh f"kojku jkT; ,oa v/khuLFk
lsokvksa esa esfMdy cksMZ }kjk ;ksX; ugha n"kkZ;s x;s ¼i`'B 23&27@lh½A
esfMdy cksMZ }kjk Jh f"kojku dks jkT;@v/khuLFk lsokvksa esa fu;qfDr gsrq
v;ksX; n"kkZ;s tkus ij jkT; ljdkj dks Jh f"kojku }kjk vH;kosnu izLrqr
fd;k x;k ¼i`'B 9&17@lh½A pwafd Jh f"kojku }kjk ekuuh;k eq[;ea=h
egksn;k dks izLrqr Kkiu esa dkfeZd ¼d&2½ foHkkx ds fnukad 01-01-1975 dks
fu;eksa esa ls fuEufyf[kr fu;e dk gokyk fn;k x;k Fkk] blfy, izdj.k dks
Li'V fVIi.kh ds fy, "kklu lfpo] fpfdRlk f"k{kk foHkkx dks 12-01-2006 dks
izsf'kr dj fn;k x;k %&
"These instructions are intended to provide guidelines to the
Medical Examiners and a Candidates who does not satisfy the
minimum requirements prescribed in these instruction cannot
be declared fit by the medical Examiners. However, while
Holding that a candidate is not fit according to the norms laid
down in these instructions it would be permissible for a
Medical Board to recommend to the Government of Rajasthan

(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:07:14 PM)

[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (21 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]

for reasons specifically recorded in writing that he/she may
be admitted to service without disadvantage to Government.
If any doubt arises relating to the application and scope of
these instructions it shall be referred to the Government in
the Department of Personnel, whose decision thereon shall be
final."

Jh f"kojku ds vH;kosnu ij fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; foHkkx dh fVIi.kh@jk;
izkIr djus ds fy, foHkkx }kjk fnukad 2-1-2006 ¼i`'B 18@lh½ o Lej.k&i=
22-2-2006 ¼i`'B 21@lh½ o 1-4-2006 ¼i`'B 22@lh½ dks i= izsf'kr fd;s x;sA
fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; ¼xzqi&1½ foHkkx ls izkIr i= dk i`'B 28@lh ij
voyksdu djsaA
fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; foHkkx ds vuqlkj esfMdy cksMZ HkrhZ lEcU/kh fu;eksa esa
fn;s x;s ekin.Mksa ds vuqlkj gh viuk fu'd'kZ ns ldrk gS rFkk fpfdRlk ,oa
LokLF; foHkkx dh jk; esfMdy cksMZ ls fHkUu gksuk lEHko ugha gSA lkFk gh
mUgksaus dkfeZd foHkkx dks vius Lo;a ds Lrj ij vfUre fu.kZ; ysus dh
dk;Zokgh djus dh jk; nh gSA fu;ekuqlkj esMhdy cksMZ dks ;g "kfDr nh xbZ
gS fd ;fn dksbZ vH;FkhZ HkrhZ fu;eksa esa mYysf[kr fpfdRlh; ijh{k.k ekun.M
iw.kZ ugha dj ik jgk gS rc viuh fyf[kr dkj.k lfgr jk; ds }kjk esMhdy
cksMZ ml vH;FkhZ dh bl "krZ ij fu;qfDr gsrq vfHk"kalk dj ldrk gS fd
jkT; ljdkj dks fdlh izdkj dk disadvantage u gksA bu funsZ"kksa esa
la"k; dh fLFkfr esa ekeyk dkfeZd foHkkx dks lkSaik tk ldrk gS ftldk
fu.kZ; vfUre gksxkA
i=koyh dk voyksdu djus ij Kkr gksrk gS fd jkT; ,oa v/khuLFk lsok,a
la;qDr izfr;ksxh ijh{kk] 2003 esa jktLFkku ys[kk lsok esa dkfeZd foHkkx }kjk
us=ghu vH;FkhZ ds fy;s vkj{k.k fd;k x;k gS ¼i`'B la- 48@lh ,oa 49@lh½A
jktLFkku yksd lsok vk;ksx }kjk ?kksf'kr ifj.kke ds vuqlkj ,d us=ghu
vH;FkhZ dks ;g lsok vkoaVu djus dh dk;Zokgh Hkh dh tk jgh gSA vr% Li'V
gS fd iwjh rjg ls vka[kksa ls ugha ns[k ikus ij Hkh ys[kk lsok dk dk;Z lEiknu
djk;k tk ldrk gSA pwafd orZeku izdj.k esa Jh f"kojku fodykax vH;FkhZ dh
Js.kh esa Hkh ugha vkrs gSa rFkk Worst to Worst muds dsl esa vf/kdrd
iw.kZr;k us=ghu gksuk gh fLFkfr cu ldrh gS rks Jh f"kojku dks dksbZ Hkh lsok
vkoafVr ugha djuk mfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA ;gka ;g mYys[k djuk mfpr
gksxk fd orZeku esa Jh f"kojku ,e-ih-;w-,-Vh-] mn;iqj esa lgk;d izkpk;Z ds
in ij dk;Zjr gS rFkk mudk dk;Z vuqlU/kku ls lacaf/kr gSA Jh f"kojku us
mPp f"k{kk izkIr dh gS rFkk ih-,p-Mh- ,oa uSV ijh{kk Hkh mRrh.kZ dh gS ftlls
;g Li'V gS fd "kS{kf.kd :i ls Jh f"kojku l{ke gSA
Jh nsokjke f"kojku dk ojh;rk dzekad 21 ¼vuqdzekad 443467½ gS] ftlds
vk/kkj ij LokLF; ijh{k.k esa iw.kZr;k fQV gksus ij mUgsa jktLFkku iz"kklfud
lsok dk vkoaVu fd;k tk ldrk Fkk rFkk iz"kklfud lsok ds mijkUr Jh
f"kojku }kjk f}rh; ojh;rk jktLFkku ifjogu lsok dks nh xbZ gSA jktLFkku
jkt; ,oa v/khuLFk lsok,sa la;qDr izfr;ksxh ijh{kk gsrq izsf'kr fjfDr;ksa ds
lEcU/k esa fuEufyf[kr fu.kZ; ls fnukad 28-02-2003 dks i= ¼i`'B 48@lh½
ds }kjk dkfeZd foHkkx }kjk lfpo] jktLFkku yksd lsok vk;ksx] vtesj dks
Hkh voxr djk;k x;k %&
jktLFkku iz"kklfud lsok esa fodykax gsrq fu;ekuqlkj vkj{k.k ugha gSA ;g
jkT; flfoy lsok gSA Hkkjr ljdkj dh vf/klwpuk fnukad 31-05-2001 esa jkT;
flfoy lsok ;k izksosfUl;y flfoy lfoZlst dk dksbZ gokyk ugha gSA vr%
jktLFkku iz"kklfud lsok mDr vf/klwpuk dh ifjHkk'kk esa ugha vkrh gSA vr%
fopkj foe"kZ ds i"pkr fy;s x;s fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj jktLFkku iz"kklfud lsok
esa fodykax gsrq dksbZ vkj{k.k ugha gSA iwoZ esa fodykax gsrq n"kkZ;k x;k vkj{k.k
okil fy;k tkrk gSA

(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:07:14 PM)

[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (22 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]

jktLFkku iz"kklfud lsok vf/kdkfj;ksa dks mi[k.M vf/kdkjh@vfrfjDr ftyk
dyDVj vkfn inksa ij fdlh Hkh le; dkuwu ,oa O;oLFkk dh fLFkfr ds
en~nsutj drZO; fu'iknu djrs gq, lgh "kkjhfjd {kerk dh vko";drk iMrh
gSA blh izdkj jktLFkku ;krk;kr lsok vf/kdkfj;ksa dks dj pksjh jksdus] voS/k
okgu] lapkyu jksdus rFkk fo"ks'k funsZ"k feyus ij fdlh Hkh le; pSfdax vkfn
djuh iMrh gSA vr% bu nksuksa lsokvksa ¼iz"kklfud lsok@jktLFkku ifjogu
lsok½ esa dk;Z lEcU/kh nkf;Ro bl izdkj ds gS fd fdlh Hkh le; QhYM esa
vkdfLed fujh{k.k@dk;Zokgh gsrq tkuk iM+ ldrk gS rFkk nksuksa lsokvksa gsrq
Ik;kZIr us="kfDr ekin.M dk;Z ds lgh fu'iknu gsrq vko";d Hkh gSA
vr% bu rF;ksa dh jks"kuh esa dkfeZd ¼fu;e½ foHkkx ds Lrj ls LokLF;
ijh{k.k gsrq tkjh foLr`r fn"kk funsZ"k ¼Instruction as to the Physical
Examination of Candidates for Admission into Various
State Service Under the Government of Rajasthan½ fnukad
1-1-75 ds vuqPNsn&II ¼30@lh½ esa nh xbZ "kfDr;ksa dk fof/kor iz;ksx djrs
gq, vuq"kalk dh tkrh gS fd Jh f"kojku dks HkrhZ fu;eksa esa f"kfFkyrk iznku
djrs gq, jktLFkku ys[kk lsok vkoafVr dh tkosA

¼uohu tSu½
"kklu mi lfpo
"kklu lfpo ¼dkfeZd½
eq[; lfpo
ek- eq[;ea=h egksn;k"

37.5 It is an admitted position, as per the affidavit filed by

the Chief Secretary, that upon due consideration and exercise of

discretion by the State Government, and notwithstanding the

petitioner's medical condition of low vision, he was found fit for

appointment to the Rajasthan Accounts Service. Accordingly, in

the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner

was permitted to join service, reflecting a conscious and reasoned

decision by the competent authority.

37.6 This Court further observes that at no point did the

petitioner apply under or seek the benefit of the physically

handicapped category, nor did he claim any reservation in the

selection process. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius -- the

express mention of one category (general) implies the exclusion of

(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:07:14 PM)

[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (23 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]

the other (reserved), thereby confirming that the petitioner sought

consideration solely on merit.

38. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner does not

fall within the definition of a person with "benchmark disability" as

contemplated under the applicable legal framework, being below

the 40% threshold. The Commissioner for Disabilities, in

categorical terms, recorded a finding that the petitioner does not

possess a benchmark disability. Contrarily, the medical boards,

consistently from the year 1999 through 2006, opined that the

petitioner was unfit for the Rajasthan Administrative Services and

allied services, on account of his visual impairment. This apparent

contradiction between administrative and medical determinations

calls for the application of the principle audi alteram partem i.e.

the right to be heard as well as a harmonized interpretation of

medical incapacity and administrative discretion; however, in the

matter in hand the plea of the petitioner was not considered by

the medical board within the stipulated period, moreover, the

petitioner had to move from pillars to pole to attain the said

medical opinion.

39. Notwithstanding the adverse medical opinions, the

petitioner's professional record, as reflected in his Annual

Confidential Reports (ACRs), is found to be consistently

exemplary. The petitioner is rated as either "outstanding" or "very

good" in all relevant service periods. No adverse, stigmatic, or

derogatory remarks appear on record. This Court at this nascent

juncture deems it appropriate the rely on the principle of Res ipsa

loquitur i.e. the thing speaks for itself, and is of the opinion that

(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:07:14 PM)

[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (24 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]

the petitioner's service record speaks to his efficiency,

competence, and contribution, which has proven to be an asset to

the State across various departments, corporations, and postings.

40. The petitioner's ACRs, academic records, and service

credentials indicate consistent excellence, as reflected by ratings

of "Outstanding" and "Very Good." In terms of Rules 19 and 20 of

the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment

by Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1999, the State

Government is vested with discretionary authority to grant

appointments. While such discretion is not a vested right in favour

of the petitioner, once the government itself, through its highest

executive offices, namely the Hon'ble Chief Minister and Chief

Secretary, has exercised this discretion in the petitioner's favour

for Rajasthan Accounts Services, the subsequent exclusion from

RAS cadre appears to be not only arbitrary, but also discriminatory

and violative of the provisions of the Constitution of India.

41. Upon perusal of the Guidelines of 1975 pertaining to

medical fitness and classification of services, it is noted that the

said guidelines divide governmental services into two broad

categories: technical and non-technical. Technical services include

posts requiring specialized physical standards, such as

engineering, medical, and certain Group 'B' services. In contrast,

non-technical services, such as, the Rajasthan Administrative

Services, Rajasthan Accounts Services, and analogous posts, are

not predicated upon stringent physical fitness criteria. The

Guidelines explicitly recognize that individuals with diminished

physical capabilities, including low vision, are capable of

(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:07:14 PM)

[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (25 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]

discharging duties effectively in non-technical services. Thus,

where no essential physical prerequisites exist, exclusion solely on

medical grounds, in absence of statutory bar or functional

incapacity, may amount to arbitrariness.

42. Upon a comprehensive reading of the Guidelines of

1975 relating to medical assessment for government services, this

Court finds no material distinction between the functional nature

or service requirements of the Rajasthan Administrative Service

and the Rajasthan Accounts Service. Both are classified as "non-

technical services" and are not contingent upon heightened

physical standards. Thus, any differentiation in treatment between

these two cadres, on the ground of medical unfitness due to low

vision, appears to be bereft of any rational basis and is

inconsistent with the object of the said guidelines. Such

differential treatment without intelligible differentia violates the

test laid down in the ratio of
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil

Nadu
: (1974) 4 SCC 3.

43. Moreover, in the ratio encapsulated in Oil and Natural

Gas Corporation Ltd. & Anr. (Supra), the Division Bench

categorically held that individuals falling in the intermediate

category i.e., those with less than 40% disability but more than

negligible impairment ought not to be excluded from consideration

merely on the ground of not possessing a benchmark disability.

The Division Bench, while construing
Sections 2(h)
,
2(r)
,
2(s)
, and
of the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016
(hereinafter

referred to as the Act of 2016), held that:

(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:07:14 PM)

[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (26 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]

43.1 The term "discrimination" under
Section 2(h)
includes

denial of reasonable accommodation;

43.2 The principles of "equality" and "non-discrimination"

enshrined in
Section 3
mandate that individuals with disabilities be

treated with parity;

43.3 The definitions of "person with benchmark disability"

under
Section 2(r)
and "person with disability" under
Section 2(s)

must be interpreted harmoniously to avoid exclusion of those with

less than 40% disability from the purview of equal opportunity.

44. The Division Bench held that if persons with benchmark

disabilities are granted reservation and appointment, the exclusion

of those with a lesser degree of disability who are otherwise

meritorious, from the appointment, on grounds of medical

unfitness, would defeat the legislative intent and spirit of the Act

of 2016. It was poignantly observed that such a person cannot be

left to ponder, "Why was I not more disabled, so as to qualify for

consideration?" Such an interpretation would be contrary to

international human rights instruments, including the principles of

the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons

with Disabilities (UNCRPD), 2007, The Persons with

Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and

Full Participation) Act, 1995
and antithetical to the objectives

of the Act of 2016. The relevant extract from the dictum passed

by the Division Bench is reproduced herein below:

"25. While dealing with persons with disabilities, a
public functionary is required to act with higher degree
of sensitivity, objectivity and in furtherance, not only
laws, but also the spirit of the Act of 2016. Equality of
treatment is not merely a statutory right, but a

(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:07:14 PM)

[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (27 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]

fundamental right which is at stake in the present case.
Denial of such right not only violates the Constitution
or Statue, but also the basic human right of specially
abled persons to live with dignity. Learned Single Judge
rightly observed that the treatment meted out to
Respondent No. 1 amounts to rubbing salt to such
injury by denying Respondent No.1 his legitimate and
legal right and make him think the worst that the ball
should have caused 10% more injury so that his merit
would not be trampled upon and he could get
appointment at least against the reserved posts. We
would add by saying that denial of appointment to
Respondent No. 1 has added insult to injury which
must be deprecated.

That is the reason why in the beginning of our
judgment, we have observed that it is the attitudinal
barrier which is the matter of concern.
Section 2
,
clause (c) of the Act of 2016, in that context, defines
the word, 'barrier' as below:

"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context
otherwise requires,--

(a) ........

(b) .......

(c) "barrier" means any factor including
communicational, cultural, economic,
environmental, institutional, political, social,

attitudinal or structural factors which hampers the
full and effective participation of persons with
disabilities in society;"

26. We hope and trust that the appellants while
dealing with persons with disabilities will act free from
such barrier which hampers the full and effective
participation of the persons with disabilities in the
society. We are also of the view that present is a fit
case where cost should be imposed upon the
appellants."

45. The petitioner has rendered over two decades of

exemplary service in non-technical roles, where his disability did

not hinder performance. The respondents' claim of his unsuitability

for field posts is negated by the record of consistent high

performance, thus undermining the rationale for denial of RAS

cadre. Therefore, the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit (an

(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:07:14 PM)

[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (28 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]

act of the court shall prejudice no one) must apply to ensure the

petitioner's rights are not defeated by executive inconsistency.

46. It is also noted that persons possessing benchmark

disabilities have, since the year 2005 up to 2007, been appointed

to high-ranking posts within the Indian Administrative Service

(IAS) and Rajasthan Administrative Service (RAS). The petitioner

has submitted a list of 26 such instances (Reiterated in order

dated 22.01.2025), of which at least five appointments were

expressly acknowledged by the State in the affidavit filed by the

learned Chief Secretary. The only contention raised by the State is

that, during the relevant time, statutory provisions did not

explicitly permit such appointments. Notwithstanding this position,

the State adopted a sympathetic approach by offering the

petitioner an appointment in the Rajasthan Accounts Service,

albeit while declining his claim to the RAS, citing alleged non-

performance in field postings as recorded in the departmental

order-sheet.

47. This Court finds that such selective reliance on medical

assessment and selective exclusion from a particular cadre,

despite meritorious performance and subsequent acknowledgment

of capability in another cadre, warrants judicial scrutiny under the

principles of reasonable classification and substantive equality

enshrined under
Article 14
of the Constitution of India.

48. The Court, invoking the UNCRPD, 2007 principles and

the provisions of the Act of 2016, observes that the law recognizes

two distinct categories:

(I) Persons with benchmark disabilities (≥40%)

(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:07:14 PM)

[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (29 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]

(II) Persons with disabilities (<40%)

The interpretation, as herein drawn by the respondents, that

denies a person with lesser disability from appointment on medical

grounds, while accommodating a more disabled person under the

reservation category, is a paradoxical injustice and contrary to the

doctrine of proportional equality as enshrined under
Articles 14
,
, and
of the Constitution of India. Such interpretation

frustrates the legislative intent and compels a person to lament

that they were not more disabled.

49. The reasoning adopted in the government's internal

notes that the petitioner is fit for Rajasthan Accounts Service but

not for RAS, is fundamentally flawed and based on a

misinterpretation of the applicable guidelines. The record shows

that from 2005 to 2007 and earlier, candidates with benchmark

disabilities were appointed to IAS and RAS posts. Thus, the denial

to the petitioner who stands higher on merit and without a claim

for reservation is arbitrary, illusory, and contrary to judicial

precedents and the constitutional mandate of substantive

equality; especially when once the petitioner was adjudged fit for

Rajasthan Accounts Service, and the Guidelines of 1975 treat both

cadres similarly, a contrary view for RAS cannot sustain judicial

scrutiny. The respondents' selective application of the rules

offends the principle of non-arbitrariness.

50.
The Constitution of India and the Act
of 2016 provide a

level playing field for differently-abled persons. When a candidate

placed 21st in merit, with outstanding service records, gold

medals, and commendable publications, is denied a rightful post

(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:07:14 PM)

[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (30 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]

solely due to lesser disability, it constitutes a direct affront to

Article 14
and amounts to per iniquitatem jus non oritur i.e. a

right does not arise from injustice. The Division Bench in Oil and

Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. & Anr. (Supra) emphasized the

need for sensitive and inclusive governance. Equal treatment and

effective participation of specially-abled persons is a constitutional

obligation, and their dignity must not be compromised by flawed

interpretations.

51. The contention of principles of acquiescence or estoppel

on the ground of the petitioner's joining Rajasthan Accounts

Service is unsustainable. The petitioner has consistently

challenged the denial of his candidature for services of RAS cadre,

as evident from his filings in 2001 and 2006. Thus, the doctrine of

approbate and reprobate does not apply.

CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS :-

52. In view of the foregoing observations and analysis, this

Court finds the rejection of the petitioner's candidature for the

RAS cadre services is arbitrary, discriminatory, and

unconstitutional, warranting judicial intervention under
Article 226

of the Constitution of India. Thence, the decision dated

05.07.2001 holding the petitioner to be unfit for Rajasthan

Administrative Services and allied services due to defective vision

is hereby quashed and set aside.

53. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed and the

respondents are directed to:

53.1 Grant the petitioner appointment w.e.f. 21.04.2006 i.e.

the date on which the next candidate in merit, Ms. Prabha Gautam

(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:07:14 PM)

[2025:RJ-JP:16526] (31 of 31) [CW-4343/2001]

(Rank 22), was appointed in the RAS cadre service in the

Rajasthan Administrative Service (RAS) cadre; with all

consequential benefits, including arrears, seniority, promotions

and pensionary advantages;

53.2 Include notional calculation for pension and other

service-related benefits from the date of filing of the first petition

in 2001, considering that by way of interim order dated

03.09.2001, granted in SB Civil Writ Petition No.4343/2001, one

post was directed to be kept vacant for the petitioner.

53.4 This Court further directs that, in recognition of the

undue hardships, humiliation and prolonged discrimination

endured by the petitioner, he be compensated with ₹5,00,000/-

(Rupees Five Lakhs Only), to be paid by the respondent-State.

54. In a symbolic gesture of institutional redressal and

acknowledgment of merit, the petitioner shall be formally granted

RAS cadre appointment in the presence of the Chief Secretary of

the State, reflecting a progressive and sensitive governance ethos

toward differently-abled citizens.

55. The above directions shall be implemented within a

period of one month from the date of pronouncement of this

judgment.

56. With these directions, these writ petitions stand

allowed. Stay application and/or pending applications, if any, shall

stand disposed of.

(SAMEER JAIN),J

Preeti Asopa

(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:07:14 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)