Manipur HC Gives 3 Weeks To Decide Disabled Lawyer’s Plea For 4% PwD Reservation In Judicial Recruitment

The petitioner, a lawyer who claimed to be a person with a disability, challenged a recruitment advertisement for Manipur Judicial Service Grade III, alleging that it did not provide the four per cent horizontal reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities required by Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

She had sent a representation dated 8 June 2026, personally delivered to the respondent on 8 July 2026.

In the writ petition, she limited her requested relief to a direction that the respondent decide the representation within a specified time.

The Court directed that her Bar Council of India certificate and disability certificate be read as part of the representation.

Whether the respondent should be directed to decide the petitioner’s representation concerning reservation in the recruitment process within a specified time.

Whether the Court should determine the merits of the petitioner’s claim concerning reservation under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

The petitioner relied on Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, concerning reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities; however, the Court did not adjudicate the provision’s application to the recruitment at issue.

Instead, it directed the respondent to consider the representation on its own merits and in accordance with law, and to issue a speaking or written order.

No precedents or substantive legal rules were applied to resolve the reservation claim.

After the petitioner confined the relief sought to a time-bound decision on her representation, the Court treated the matter as a straightforward request for administrative consideration and took up the writ petition for disposal.

It directed the respondent to consider the representation together with the petitioner’s BCI and disability certificates, while expressly requiring that the decision be made independently, in accordance with law, and without being influenced by observations in the order.

The Court did not assess whether the recruitment advertisement complied with Section 34, leaving that substantive question for the respondent’s consideration and any subsequent challenge.

The respondent was directed to decide the representation, read together with the specified certificates, within three weeks—by 6 November 2026—and to serve a speaking or written order on the petitioner’s counsel within five working days of disposal.

If dissatisfied or aggrieved, the petitioner may return to the Court, with all questions, prayers, rights, and contentions preserved.

There was no order as to costs.