Reserved PwD seats cannot be de-reserved or claimed by non-disabled candidates even during spot selection.

The Petitioner, a non-disabled candidate (non-PwD), applied for the M.Ed. course for the academic session 2025-26 under the Students Academic Management System (SAMS)

Despite scoring 57.50% marks in the entrance test, he was not selected in the regular list or the first phase of spot selection at Dibakar Patnaik Institute of Advanced Studies in Education (DPIASE), Berhampur

During the second spot selection on October 28, 2025, the institute admitted Opposite Party No. 5—a Person with Disability (PwD) candidate—who had secured only 28.75% marks

The Petitioner challenged this admission, contending that reservation policies do not apply to spot selections according to certain guidelines and that his merit was superior

The State (O.P. Nos. 1-4) countered that 5% of seats are strictly reserved for PwD candidates and cannot be converted to general category seats even during spot selection

Reservation policy outlined in the Information Brochure [Annexure-C/3] and the SAMS guidelines [Annexure-A/3], which mandate a 5% compulsory reservation for PwD candidates that cannot be "de-reserved" as long as eligible PwD applicants are available

Statutory mandates of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

Supreme Court precedent in Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India regarding human dignity as a facet of Article 21

Supreme Court precedent in Rajeev Kumar Gupta v. Union of India regarding the mandatory nature of PwD reservation

Supreme Court precedent in Disabled Rights Group v. Union of India regarding the effective implementation of the 2016 Act

The court reasoned that the Information Brochure and the RTI disclosures clearly established that PwD seats are distinct from the general social category pool and are not subject to de-reservation

Although the Petitioner pointed to guidelines stating spot selection is based on "merit without application of reservation policy," the court interpreted this to mean that while social categories (SC/ST/SEBC) might be relaxed in spot selection, the 5% PwD statutory quota remains "compulsory" and "exclusive"

The court found that because O.P. No. 5 was an eligible PwD candidate, the institute was legally bound to grant them admission over a high-scoring non-PwD candidate to satisfy the statutory mandate

The court emphasized that the right to reservation for disabled persons is a statutory and human right that cannot be infringed upon by general merit claims

The court answered that the PwD reservation persists even during spot selection

Consequently, the court found no illegality in the admission of O.P. No. 5. The writ petition was dismissed on contest, and the prayer for cancellation of O.P. No. 5’s admission was rejected