In a landmark ruling advancing inclusion for persons with disabilities (PwD), the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Haryana Government and the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) to relax the qualifying marks in recruitment examinations for PwD candidates, holding that strict uniform standards violate the constitutional guarantee of equality.
The judgment delivered by Justice Harpreet Singh Brar on February 27 disposes of three writ petitions filed by Sohan (a 100 per cent locomotor-disabled PhD holder), Devender Aggarwal, and Naveen Kumar (both affected by cerebral palsy). The petitioners challenged advertisements for Scientist-B (Group B) and Assistant Environmental Engineer posts in the Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB). Reserved PwD posts remained vacant because candidates, despite clearing screening tests, failed to meet the 35 per cent cutoff in the subject knowledge test. No relaxation was granted despite government instructions and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act 2016.
The court framed the core issue as: “whether relaxation in the selection criteria with respect to persons with disabilities is constitutionally and jurisprudentially justified and warranted”. It answered emphatically in the affirmative, allowing all petitions and issuing time-bound directions for implementation.
Justice Brar observed that disadvantages faced by persons with disabilities stem not only from physical or mental impairments but also from social and institutional barriers that restrict equal participation.
‘Ableism treats able-bodiedness as superior’
“The notion of ableism holds able-bodiedness to be a superior state of being, which often results in fewer educational and employment opportunities for persons with disabilities, irrespective of capabilities,” he noted. Students with disabilities may not respond to conventional teaching methods, yet lack assistive resources, while employers often view them as liabilities. Such an approach contradicts constitutional guarantees.
Drawing from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Jeeja Ghosh (2016), the judge emphasised a human-rights perspective.
“Discrimination occurs due to arbitrary denial of opportunities for equal participation… Equality not only implies preventing discrimination but goes beyond in remedying discrimination against groups suffering systematic discrimination… embracing the notion of positive rights, affirmative action and reasonable accommodation,” he quoted from the judgment.
The high court underscored that the RPWD Act defines “reasonable accommodation” as necessary modifications without undue burden to ensure PwD enjoy rights equally. Sections 3(5) and 34 mandate identification of suitable posts, 4 per cent reservation (including 1 per cent for locomotor disability), carry-forward of unfilled vacancies, and relaxation where needed. Haryana government instructions (2014–2023) repeatedly direct relaxation of standards if sufficient PwD candidates are unavailable.
‘Reservation meaningless without relaxations’
Justice Brar stressed that reservation becomes meaningless without supporting relaxations.
“Relaxation in selection criteria for persons with disabilities is not a concession but a constitutional obligation to achieve substantive equality in furtherance of Article 14, 16, 21 of the Constitution and the statutory framework of the RPWD Act,” he said.
Justice Brar added that treating unequals like equals, ignoring their circumstances, cannot yield substantive equality; it renders equality formal and illusory.
In the operative part, the court directed Haryana’s chief secretary to constitute a committee within two weeks, referencing notifications from the Department of Personnel and Training (15.08.2018 and 17.05.2022) and Supreme Court precedents (In re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services, Vikash Kumar, Om Rathod). The committee must finalise relaxed norms within four weeks.
The HPSC must then reconsider the petitioners’ cases under the new norms and recommend successful candidates to the HSPCB within two weeks thereafter. The chief secretaries of Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh have been asked to frame comprehensive instructions for future recruitments and file compliance affidavits within three months.
The judgment criticises earlier division bench observations in Sachin Kumar (2025) for overlooking government instructions on relaxation and DoPT guidelines. It also notes that one reserved post in the Scientist-B recruitment was inadvertently omitted due to departmental error, which the HSPCB admitted.
With approximately 2.68 crore persons with disabilities in India per the 2011 Census, the verdict is expected to set a precedent for government recruitments across sectors.
Key reasons given by Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
• Disadvantages for PwD arise not only from physical/mental impairments but from deep-rooted social and institutional barriers.
• Ableism treats able-bodiedness as superior, denying equal education and employment opportunities despite capabilities.
• True equality requires positive rights, affirmative action and reasonable accommodation (Jeeja Ghosh, (2016) 7 SCC 761).
• RPWD Act 2016 mandates “reasonable accommodation” (modifications without undue burden), 4 per cent reservation and carry-forward of unfilled PwD vacancies.
• Relaxation in qualifying marks is a constitutional obligation under Articles 14, 16 & 21 to achieve substantive equality.
• Treating unequals as equals makes reservation meaningless and equality illusory.
• Haryana Government instructions (2014–2023) explicitly direct relaxation when sufficient PwD candidates are unavailable.
(Extracted from judgment dated 27.02.2026 in CWP-34752-2023 & connected cases)
The Punjab and Haryana High Court says treating unequals like equals, ignoring their circumstances, renders equality formal and illusory. (Express photo) 
Share
