Jharkhand HC Orders Chowkidar Appointment For Disabled Woman Who Missed Run By 3 Seconds, Finding No Reasonable Accommodation

The Dumka district advertisement for 328 Chowkidar posts reserved 4% of seats for persons with disabilities.

Juthika Pal, a candidate with locomotor disability, applied, passed the written examination and was called for the physical test.

She was required to complete the same running test as other candidates, without additional time or other accommodation, and completed it in 10 minutes and 3 seconds—three seconds beyond the stated limit.

Her name was omitted from the provisional merit list; she alleged that 11 of the 13 reserved posts remained vacant and that her representation seeking consideration was pending.

The State maintained that she failed the running test and that neither the applicable rules nor the 2018 notification provided for relaxation.

Section 2(y) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 defines “reasonable accommodation” as necessary and appropriate modifications or adjustments that do not impose a disproportionate or undue burden and enable persons with disabilities to exercise their rights equally with others.

Section 20(1) prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities in government employment, while Section 20(2) requires government establishments to provide reasonable accommodation and an appropriate, barrier-free and conducive environment.

The Court relied on Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission, (2021) 5 SCC 370, which recognises reasonable accommodation as an affirmative obligation and an essential component of equality, non-discrimination and dignity under the 2016 Act.

The petitioner had passed the written examination and was excluded because she exceeded the running-time limit by three seconds.

The Court found that she had been required to compete in the running test without any accommodation, despite her disability. It held that the absence of a specific relaxation in the recruitment rules or the 2018 notification could not displace the statutory obligations imposed by the 2016 Act.

Since reasonable accommodation was required in the circumstances and had not been provided, the petitioner’s exclusion was unlawful; the Court also noted that reserved posts remained vacant.

It directed respondent no. 3 to take the necessary steps and issue her an appointment letter within eight weeks of receiving the order. The writ petition was allowed.