JUTHIKA PAL vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

2026:JHHC:32329
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P (S) No. 381 of 2026
Juthika Pal, aged about 38 years, Wife of Goutam Kumar
Kundu, Resident of Vill-Jaruadih, P.O. Jaruadih, P.S.-
Masalia, District-Dumka, Jharkhand. …… Petitioner
V E R S U S
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka having office at
Dumka, P.O. and P.S. Dumka, District-Dumka.
3. The Deputy Collector (Establishment), Dumka, P.O. and
P.S. Dumka, District-Dumka.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Dumka, P.O. and P.S.
Dumka, District-Dumka. …… Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
….…

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shubham Mishra, Adv
Mr. Kazi Asif Equbal, Adv
Mr. Gyandev Raj, Adv
For the Resp.-State : Mr. A.K.Yadav, Sr. S.C.-I
….…..

C.A.V. ON: 28/10/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:04/11/2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the
petitioner for the following reliefs;
Following reliefs:-
i. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction upon the
respondent authorities to show cause as to under what authority and under
what circumstances the by completely dehoring advertisement being
Advertisement no 01 of 2025 the petitioner was not considered for
employment against the advertised post of Chowkidar despite the fact they
fulfil the criteria for being considered for employment under the Persons with
Disabilities Category;
AND
ii. For issuance of further writ, order or direction upon the respondent
authorities to immediately and forthwith appoint the petitioners as
chowkidar in her respective Beat in compliance with the terms of
Advertisement;
3. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings are that
an Advertisement being Advertisement no 01 of 2025 was issued
in the District of Dumka for appointment on 328 posts of
Chowkidar. As per clause A sub-clause 2 of the said
advertisement 4% seats were reserved for the applicants under
1

2026:JHHC:32329
persons with disabilities category. The petitioner who belongs to
Pwd category (Locomotive Disability) and having required
qualification applied for the post of Chowkidar pursuant to
aforesaid advertisement. The aforesaid reservation for Pwd
category was provided as per clause 5(kh) (i) of memo no. 2249
dated 03.04.2018 and as per the advertisement the said
reservation will be guided by the aforesaid notification.
Accordingly, the admit card was issued to the petitioner and she
was called for written examination on 05.10.2025.
4. The petitioner appeared in the written examination and
after being successful vide general notice dated 01.11.2025 she
was called for physical test which was to be conducted from
04.11.2025 to 06.11.2025 and the name of the petitioner
appeared at serial no. 628. In the physical examination although
the petitioner belongs to PWD category she was directed to
appear in the physical running test and no additional time was
allotted to the petitioner and therefore the petitioner competed
her physical test along with all the candidates on the stipulated
date.
5. In the running test, some of the disabled candidates
were not asked to appear but the petitioner was directed to
appear in the running test. After the completion of the physical
running test the petitioner was asked to sign a paper wherein it
was mentioned that she has not qualified in the running test only
for 3 seconds.
6. Thereafter, provisional merit list of the selected
candidates was published but the roll number of the petitioner
did not find place in the said list. From the perusal of the
provisional merit list it was clear that no cut off marks was
published for the selected candidates under the Pwd category or
no separate result was published for the said category.
2

2026:JHHC:32329
7. Out of total 328 seats, 13 seats were reserved for pwd
category candidates and out of these 13 seats only 2 candidates
were selected and the remaining 11 seats are still vacant.
8. The petitioner approached the respondents by filing a
representation for considering her claim for appointment as the
11 seats pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement were still
vacant but the same representation has been kept pending by
the respondent authorities till date. Being aggrieved by the said
action of the respondents, the petitioner has approached this
Court in the present writ petition.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
admittedly the petitioner belong to pwd category suffering from
the Locomotive disability which is apparent from the disability
certificate which is annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition
and in spite of being a pwd candidate, the petitioner was asked
to appear with the all regular candidates in the physical running
test and no separate time was allotted to the petitioner for
completion of the said test.
10. He has further submitted that in spite of competing with
the regular candidates she has finished her running test in 10
Min and 3 Seconds which was only 3 seconds more than the
qualifying time and as such by not selecting the petitioner only
on this ground, the respondents have acted in an arbitrary
manner as without providing additional time a pwd category
candidate cannot be disqualified for only 3 seconds.
11. He has further draws attention of this court to section
2(y) of The Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016 wherein
the term Reasonable Accommodation has been defined and has
submitted that as per the said definition reasonable
accommodation means necessary and appropriate modification
and adjustments, without imposing a disproportionate or undue
burden in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities
3

2026:JHHC:32329
the enjoyment or exercise of rights equally with others and in the
present case no such reasonable accommodation has been
provided to the petitioner.
12. Ld. Counsel has further relied upon Sec 20 (1) and (2)
wherein it has been provided that no government establishment
shall discriminate against any persons with disability in any
matter relating to employment and further by relying upon
Clause (2) wherein it has been provided that every government
establishments shall provide reasonable accommodation and
appropriate barrier free and conducive environment to the
employees with the disability but in the present case the
respondents have discriminated the petitioner and has not
provided any reasonable accommodation which is against the
statutory provisions laid down in The Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016.
13. To strengthen his argument, he relied upon paragraph
52 of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of Vikash Kumar V. Union Public Service Commission
reported in 2021 5 SCC 370 .
14. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent
by relying upon the counter affidavit has submitted that written
test of 50 marks was to be conducted and the said merit list will
be prepared on the basis of marks obtained in written test,
physical test and work experience, but as per the merit list the
petitioner secured less marks than that of cut off marks.
15. He further submitted that for the women 20 marks has
been fixed for those who will complete their running within 8
minutes and 10 marks has been fixed for those who will complete
their running within 10 minutes after that they will be rejected
as the petitioner has taken more than 10 minutes, she has not
been considered.
4

2026:JHHC:32329
16. He has further submitted that neither any provision
regarding the exemption to Pwd in Chowkidar cadre Rule, 2015
has been given; nor the resolution of personnel department vide
memo no. 2249 dated 03.04.2018 provided any exemptions. It
contains only clarification regarding exception to PWD candidate;
accordingly, action has been taken strictly in per Resolution and
the 2015 rules.
17. Having heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and upon
perusal of records, it transpires that the case of the petitioner
was not considered on the ground that she has not completed
her physical running test within the stipulated time of 10
minutes and no provision of relaxation of time was provided in
the appointment rules and hence she was not selected under
PWD category pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement.
18. As a matter of fact, 4% seats were reserved in the
aforesaid advertisement for the person with disability and by
qualifying the written test the petitioner was called for physical
running test and admittedly she was asked to appear with all the
regular candidates and by complying the said direction the
petitioner competed her running test and failed to qualify the
said physical test only by 3 seconds.
19. It is also an admitted position that no additional time or
accommodation was provided by the respondents to the
petitioner in spite of the fact that she belongs to Pwd category
which is against the statutory provision of Sec 20 (1) and (2) of
The Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016 which emphasis
that no government establishment shall discriminate against any
persons with disability in any matter relating to employment and
further clause 2 provides that every government establishments
shall provide reasonable accommodation and appropriate barrier
free and conducive environment to the employees with the
disability.
5

2026:JHHC:32329
20. From the definition of reasonable accommodation which
is defined in section 2(y) of the aforesaid Act, it clearly transpires
that reasonable accommodation means a necessary and
appropriate modification and adjustments, without imposing a
disproportionate or undue burden in a particular case, to ensure
to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise of rights
equally with others.
21. In the present case, no such reasonable accommodation
has been provided to the petitioner in spite of specific legal
provision laid down in The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
2016 .
22. The contention of the respondents that since neither the
appointment Rules; nor the notification of 2018 issued by the
State of Jharkhand provides for such reasonable
accommodation, the petitioner was not provided with any such
accommodation; is not tenable in the eyes of law as no
notification or rules can go beyond the specific statutory
provision laid down in an Act enacted by the parliament.
23. The issue of reasonable accommodation has been delt
by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vikash Kumar V. Union
Public Service Commission reported in 2021 5 SCC 370 wherein
paragraph 52 the Hon’ble Apex court has held which is quoted
as under:-
“ The principle of reasonable accommodation has found a more
expansive manifestation in the 2016 RPwD Act. Section 3 of the
2016 RPwD Act goes beyond a formal guarantee of non-
discrimination by casting affirmative duties and obligations on the
government to protect the rights recognised in Section 3 by taking
steps to utilise the capacity of persons with disabilities “by providing
appropriate environment”. Among the obligations which are cast on
the government is the duty to take necessary steps to ensure
reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities. The
concept of reasonable accommodation in Section 2 (y) incorporates
making “necessary and appropriate modification and adjustment”
so long as they not impose a disproportionate or undue burden in a
particular case to ensure to persons with disability the enjoyment or
exercise of rights equally with others. Equality, non-discrimination
and dignity are the essence of the protective ambit of the 2016
RPwD Act.”


6

2026:JHHC:32329
24. In view of the aforesaid finding, it is clear that the
principle of the reasonable accommodation attracts a positive
obligation upon the State to provide additional support to the
person with disabilities to facilitate their full and effective
participation in society but in the present case, no such
accommodation has been provided to the petitioner in the
physical running test; as such, the action of the respondent is
not sustainable in the eyes of law and is against the principles
laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
25. In the factual background, it is apparent that the
petitioner has duly qualified her written test and failed to qualify
the running test only by 3 seconds as no reasonable
accommodation was provided to the petitioner which was
necessary as per the provisions contained in The Rights of
Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 .
26. Having regards to the aforesaid facts and the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is held that the petitioner is
entitled for appointment on the post of Chowkidar pursuant to
the Advertisement no.01 of 2025 in the district of Dumka under
PWD category as the seats under the said category is still vacant.
Therefore, the respondent no.3 is directed to take
appropriate steps for appointment and consequently issue
appointment letter to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
27. With the aforesaid direction, the instant writ application
stands allowed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Dated:04 /11/2026
Amardeep/
A.F.R
Uploaded
6.11.2026


7