Orissa HC Directs OAS Appointment For Category-III PwD Candidate Against Category-IV Backlog Vacancy, If His Rank Qualifies

The petitioner applied as a candidate with benchmark disability in Category III in the Odisha Civil Services Examination, 2022.

The advertisement showed two backlog vacancies for Category IV in the OAS-A (JB) cadre.

The petitioner was placed at rank 455 in the select list and appointed to an ORS Group-B post; two Category III candidates ranked above him were appointed to OAS-A (JB) posts against Category III vacancies.

The petitioner sought appointment to OAS-A (JB) through interchange of the unfilled Category IV backlog vacancies under Section 34(2) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the State Government’s Resolution dated 25 February 2021.

The State rejected his claim on 17 December 2024.

The High Court noted that the two Category IV vacancies remained unfilled.

Section 34(2) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 provides that where a vacancy cannot be filled in a recruitment year because a suitable person with benchmark disability is unavailable, it must be carried forward to the succeeding recruitment year; if no suitable candidate is available then either, the vacancy may first be filled by interchange among the five disability categories, and only if no person with disability is available may it be filled by a person without disability.

The provision’s proviso permits interchange with the prior approval of the appropriate Government where the nature of the vacancies prevents employment of a person from a particular category.

Paragraph 5(3) of the State Government Resolution dated 25 February 2021 sets out the same carry-forward and interchange framework.

The Court accepted that the two Category IV OAS-A (JB) vacancies were backlog vacancies and remained unfilled.

Applying Section 34(2) and paragraph 5(3), it held that the vacancies should have been considered for interchange among the five disability categories.

The Court therefore found that the petitioner’s claim should have been allowed, subject to his falling within the zone of consideration based on his position in the select list.

The petitioner is not entitled to seniority over his batchmates and is to be treated as a fresh entrant to the cadre, with necessary pay protection.

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.