Persons with benchmark disability are entitled to minimum qualifying mark relaxations at par with SC/ST candidates.

The petitioner, a dentist with a 60% locomotive disability, applied for the Dental Surgeon Recruitment Examination, 2024, conducted by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (Respondent No. 2).

The examination policy required a minimum qualifying mark of 40% per section, with a 10% relaxation (reducing the cut-off to 30%) for SC, ST, OBC, EWS, and Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD).

The petitioner participated in the written examination held on 12.10.2025 but failed to secure the qualifying marks.

He subsequently filed this writ petition challenging the uniform 10% relaxation, arguing that PwBD candidates require a higher degree of relaxation (e.g., a 20% cut-off) compared to other reserved categories to ensure equity under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.

1. Whether a candidate can challenge the terms and conditions of a recruitment process after participating in the selection and being declared unsuccessful.

2. Whether the State's policy of granting a uniform 10% relaxation in qualifying marks to PwBD candidates at par with SC/ST/OBC/EWS categories is discriminatory or violates the RPwD Act, 2016.

The court primarily applied the principle of estoppel in recruitment, referencing Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar, which establish that unsuccessful candidates cannot challenge selection rules after participation.

Regarding disability rights, the court looked to Sections 3, 20, 33, and 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which mandate non-discrimination, reasonable accommodation, and horizontal reservation.

It further relied on the Supreme Court precedent in In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services (2025) and Aryan Raj v. State (UT) of Chandigarh, which hold that PwBD candidates are entitled to "at least" the same benefits/relaxations as SC/ST candidates but do not mandate a higher relaxation unless prescribed by specific rules.

The court first determined that the petition was technically barred because the petitioner challenged the advertisement's conditions only after participating and failing the exam.

On the merits, the court analyzed whether "reasonable accommodation" necessitates a lower cut-off for the disabled than for SC/ST groups. It observed that under Rule 11(5) of the M.P. Public Health and Family Welfare (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2022, reservations are horizontal.

The court reasoned that while PwBD candidates constitute a distinct class, the State’s decision to grant them a 10% relaxation—the same level afforded to the most socially backward classes (SC/ST)—satisfies the constitutional mandate of equality.

Following the Supreme Court’s stance that PwBD qualifying marks should "ordinarily be the same as for SC/ST candidates," the court found no evidence of irrationality or illegality in the State’s policy.

The court held that the 10% relaxation provided to PwBD candidates is in conformity with established legal propositions and is not arbitrary.

The High Court dismissed the petition.