Writ challenging recruitment advertisement is premature if based solely on apprehended violations of horizontal reservation rosters.

The petitioner, a person with benchmark disability belonging to the General Category, challenged an advertisement dated 30.12.2025 issued by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission for the post of Lecturer

The advertisement notified 725 vacancies, including 78 in Hindi and 62 in Sanskrit

While the advertisement reserved three vacancies in Hindi and two in Sanskrit for persons with disabilities, it did not specify the distribution of these horizontal reservations across vertical categories (SC/ST/OBC/General)

The petitioner approached the Court apprehending that all disability-reserved seats might be occupied by candidates from the SC or ST categories, thereby excluding General Category disabled candidates

1. Whether an advertisement is legally infirm if it fails to specify the distribution of horizontal reservation for persons with disabilities across different vertical categories

2. Whether a writ petition challenging an advertisement based on a prospective apprehension of roster violation is maintainable

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (referred to in the judgment as the 2017 Act), which mandates a 4% reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities in public services

State Government’s Government Order (G.O.) dated 22.05.2020, which provides the reservation roster

The legal principle established is that selecting bodies are not required to pre-indicate the vertical distribution of horizontal vacancies in the advertisement; rather, disabled candidates are to be adjusted into the roster based on their individual merit and applicable criteria during the final allotment

The Court found the petitioner’s challenge to be without merit, noting that the advertisement correctly earmarked the requisite number of seats for persons with disabilities in accordance with the 4% mandate

The Court accepted the State’s submission that the specific vertical category of a disabled candidate is determined at the stage of selection and allotment based on merit, and precisely defining this in the initial advertisement is neither required by the G.O. dated 22.05.2020 nor practically necessary

The Court reasoned that the petitioner’s claim was based purely on a hypothetical fear that the authorities might violate the reservation policy in the future

Consequently, the Court determined that no actual cause of action had arisen at this stage, rendering the writ petition premature

The writ petition was dismissed as premature, with the Court ruling that a challenge cannot be maintained solely on the apprehension of future roster violations

The petition was disposed of with a direction permitting the petitioner to submit a representation to the Secretary, Appointment and Personnel, within two weeks. If submitted, the Secretary is directed to decide upon the representation in accordance with the law within ten weeks thereafter