Ineligibility for reservation where disability type does not conform to post-specific statutory notification requirements.

The appellant/writ petitioner participated in the selection process for the post of Ophthalmic Assistant in the Medical Department.

The Writ Court previously found that the appellant had applied under the MBC de-notified category rather than the Differently Abled Person (DAP) category.

Having secured 57.75 marks, she fell below the cut-off marks for both general (58.24) and women (59.51) categories in the MBC pool.

The appellant challenged the Writ Court’s order dated 27.01.2026 and the subsequent modification order dated 27.02.2026.

In the appeal, it was further clarified that while she claimed disability in her application, her actual disability (65% hearing impairment) did not match the specific disability required by the recruitment notification.

1. Whether there was any infirmity in the Writ Court's decision to uphold the rejection of the appellant's candidature based on secured marks and category eligibility.

2. Whether the appellant qualified for reservation under the 'Differently Abled Persons' category as defined in the recruitment notification and relevant Government Orders.

The court applied the recruitment notification dated 17.02.2023, which was issued in accordance with G.O.(Ms) No.3, Health and Family Welfare (C2) Department (06.01.2016) and G.O.(Ms) No.21, Welfare of Differently Abled Persons (30.05.2017).

These rules mandate that the 4% reservation for differently abled candidates in the post of Ophthalmic Assistant is restricted specifically to "Orthopaedically physically handicapped locomotory disability of the lower limb" with a disability range between 40% and 70%.

The court examined the appellant's application and the statutory requirements for the post and noted that the recruitment notification restricted DAP eligibility specifically to those with locomotory disabilities of the lower limb.

Although the appellant stated in her application that she suffered from an "Orthopaedically Physically Disabled" condition, the pass-book issued by the Government proved her actual condition was "65% hearing impairment".

Consequently, the court reasoned that the appellant failed to produce the relevant certificate to satisfy the specific eligibility criteria established for reservation in this recruitment.

Since she also failed to meet the cut-off marks for the MBC category under which she was evaluated, her candidature was rightly disregarded by the respondents.

The Writ Appeal was dismissed, and the orders dated 27.01.2026 and 27.02.2026 were upheld; no costs were awarded.