Gujarat HC Orders Mukhya Sevika Appointment for 45%-Disabled Woman After Spinal Deformity Was Added to Reserved Categories

The petitioner had a certified 45% locomotor disability, kyphoscoliosis, classified as spinal deformity.

In the recruitment for Mukhya Sevika, Class III, under Advertisement No. 14/2021–22, spinal deformity was not among the listed sub-categories eligible for reservation.

She therefore applied under the multiple-disabilities category and obtained 46.880 marks.

Although included in an additional provisional merit list, she was rejected at document verification because her disability did not match the category under which she had applied.

During the continuing recruitment process, Central and State notifications directed that spinal deformity and spinal injury be included under locomotor disability; the Panchayat Department later implemented that direction, and subsequent recruitment materials included those sub-categories.

The petitioner sought inclusion in the final merit list and appointment under the PwBD category.

The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 requires equality and non-discrimination in employment (Sections 3 and 20), provides for equal opportunity policies (Section 21), and mandates reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities, including locomotor disabilities and multiple disabilities (Section 34); under Section 34(2), unfilled reserved vacancies are carried forward and may be interchanged among disability categories before being filled by a person without disability.

The Court applied the principle that Article 226 relief is discretionary and may be moulded in light of public interest, equity, and the facts of the case, relying on M.S. Sanjay v. Indian Bank, 2025 INSC 177, paras 9–10, and the principle discussed in Shiv Shanker Dal Mills v. State of Haryana.

The Court also distinguished Rutvik Rajeshbhai Jasoliya v. Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board, 2023 SCC OnLine Guj 2921, on its different facts.

The Court considered the petitioner’s exclusion a consequence of the failure to include spinal deformity in the applicable sub-categories, rather than a basis to deny her the benefit of the disability-reservation framework.

The competent Central and State authorities had directed that spinal deformity be included under locomotor disability, and the recruitment process continued after those directions were issued; the State Panchayat Department and the recruiting authority subsequently recognised the sub-category.

The Court further noted that candidates with lower marks had been recommended in the relevant category and that the petitioner’s case differed from Rutvik, where the applicant had applied under a disability category different from the one he had.

Given the Act’s purpose and the equitable considerations identified, the Court held that relief could be granted under Article 226 even if the original vacancies had been filled, by directing accommodation in an existing or future vacancy.

It directed the Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board to recommend her for appointment under Category C and directed that she be accommodated against an existing vacancy or, if none existed, a future vacancy.

Her appointment was to take effect from the date on which candidates in the additional provisional merit list were appointed; she was entitled to seniority and notional financial benefits, but no arrears.

The petition was allowed and the rule made absolute to that extent.