State cannot prescribe arbitrary maximum disability limits to exclude otherwise qualified candidates from public employment.

The appellant, a law graduate with 90% permanent locomotor disability (left shoulder disarticulation) and a practicing advocate since 2015, applied for the post of Assistant District Attorney (ADA) under a 2018 advertisement.

The advertisement reserved two posts for persons with disabilities (PwD) but stipulated that disability must be between 40% and 60% in one leg or one arm.

The appellant qualified the written test and the interview, and his name was recommended by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission for appointment.

However, the State Government withheld his appointment, citing that his 90% disability exceeded the 60% threshold fixed in the advertisement.

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the appellant’s writ petition, relying on a prior precedent (V. Surendra Mohan) to hold that employers could prescribe maximum disability limits.

The Court primarily applied Section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, which defines "person with benchmark disability" as having not less than 40% of a specified disability.

The Court further relied on Section 33 regarding the identification of posts.

The Court applied the principles from Vikash Kumar v. U.P.S.C., which expressly overruled V. Surendra Mohan and established that the principle of "reasonable accommodation" is a cornerstone of the RPwD Act and a fundamental right under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution.

The Court reasoned that the RPwD Act, 2016 defines a "floor" (minimum 40%) for reservation eligibility but does not authorize the State to create an arbitrary "ceiling" to exclude those with higher degrees of disability.

By fixing a 60% limit, the respondents effectively rewrote the statutory definition of benchmark disability.

The Court found that the High Court erred by relying on V. Surendra Mohan, a precedent overruled by a three-judge bench in Vikash Kumar for failing to consider the transformative nature of the RPwD Act and the mandate of "reasonable accommodation".

The Court noted that the duties of an ADA—litigation, teaching, and legal advice—require mental acumen rather than specific physical range in a shoulder, meaning the 60% cap had no rational nexus with the job requirements.

The State failed to provide any scientific or expert committee report to justify why a person with 90% disability could not perform the functions of an ADA.

It held that the 60% disability cap was arbitrary, unjustified, and in gross violation of the RPwD Act and Articles 14 and 16.

The Court directed the State of Himachal Pradesh to issue an appointment letter to the appellant within two weeks.

The appointment is to relate back to September 19, 2019, with all notional benefits.

Additionally, due to the unjust denial of appointment and prolonged litigation, the Court imposed costs of Rs. 5 lakhs on the State to be paid to the appellant.