Introduction:

In Vaishali Chaturvedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Madhya Pradesh High Court delivered a significant judgment clarifying the treatment of disability-reserved vacancies that had been identified in prior years but advertised much later. The case came before Justice Ashish Shroti, who examined the M.P. Junior Service (Joint Qualifying) Examination Rules, 2013 in conjunction with Section 34(2) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The dispute arose when the petitioner, a 50% locomotor disabled candidate, selected as a Hindi Stenographer (Post Code 020), learned that the post had been withdrawn after her result was declared. Seeking alternative appointment against the backlog vacancies of Shorthand Typist under disability categories, she was denied on the ground that all locomotor disability (LD) posts had already been allotted to higher-merit candidates. The controversy centred on whether vacancies identified back in 2019 should be treated as backlog vacancies for the purposes of the 2023 recruitment cycle, and whether the unfilled multiple disability (MD) post should be interchanged in favour of an LD candidate under Section 34(2). The Court undertook an in-depth interpretation of legislative intent and clarified that identification of vacancies, not the year of advertisement, determines the recruitment year—thus establishing 2019 as the true recruitment year. This finding had direct consequences on whether the petitioner was eligible for consideration under the backlog MD vacancy.

Arguments of the Petitioner:

The petitioner, through counsel Advocate Prashant Singh Kaurav, argued that the withdrawal of Post Code 020 after declaration of results violated her legitimate expectation of appointment. She contended that once she had been selected based on merit, the department could not arbitrarily withdraw the post without lawful justification. She further submitted that eight backlog disability-reserved posts had been advertised in 2023 as part of the Joint Examination, including multiple posts under the visually handicapped, locomotor disability, and multiple disability categories. She highlighted that the MD vacancy, which remained unfilled after identification in 2019, should have been subjected to interchange under Section 34(2) of the RPwD Act, which permits filling an unfulfilled disability category post with a candidate from another disability category where suitable candidates are available. The petitioner stressed that Section 34(2) mandated carrying forward vacancies when candidates were unavailable in a recruitment year, and if vacancies persisted, interchanging across disability categories became compulsory. Since these MD posts were identified in 2019 but had remained unfulfilled for years, they constituted backlog vacancies eligible for interchange for an LD candidate like herself. She argued that denial of such interchange amounted to violating the statutory mandate of equitable representation for persons with disabilities. She also argued that non-advertisement for several years did not erase the backlog character of identified vacancies, and that the pandemic-induced delay in advertisement could not undermine her statutory rights. She asserted that the authorities had misinterpreted the law and overlooked the constitutional goal of substantive equality for disabled candidates.

Arguments of the Respondents:

The respondents, represented by Advocate Shashank Indapurkar for the Employee Selection Board and Government Advocate G.K. Agrawal for the State, countered the petitioner’s claims by arguing that Section 34(2) was being misinterpreted. They maintained that since the vacancies were advertised for the first time only in 2023, they could not be classified as backlog vacancies. The respondents emphasised that the term “carried forward vacancy” presupposes an earlier attempt at recruitment, which had not occurred in this case. According to them, identification of a vacancy does not automatically make it part of a previous recruitment year unless recruitment was actually initiated. They argued that the delays caused by the pandemic justified the late advertisement and that the recruitment year must be treated as 2023, the year in which applications were invited. They also contended that the unfilled MD post could not be interchanged because the vacancy had not been carried forward through failed recruitment attempts, and therefore the statutory conditions for interchange under Section 34(2) were not met. The respondents submitted that disability reservation must be applied strictly, and only candidates belonging to the MD category could be considered unless statutory conditions for interchange were triggered. Since the LD category already had several candidates with higher merit, the petitioner could not claim appointment in the MD category. They thus defended cancellation of the petitioner’s result and rejected her claim for appointment under the MD backlog vacancy.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Ashish Shroti delivered a detailed judgment analysing statutory provisions and the purpose of disability reservation. The Court held that the year a vacancy is identified is the recruitment year, irrespective of when advertisement is issued. Accordingly, the eight disability-reserved posts, including MD posts, identified in 2019 were deemed part of the 2019 recruitment year, not 2023. The Court clarified the meaning of “backlog vacancies,” noting that even if vacancies had not been advertised earlier, they still qualified as backlog if they remained unfilled since the year of identification. The judgment emphasised that backlog vacancies form a separate and distinct class and cannot be merged with fresh vacancies of a later recruitment year. The Court highlighted that Section 34(2) serves a dual purpose: ensuring representation for persons with disabilities and preventing exclusion due to rigid categorisation. The phrase “for any other sufficient reason” within the statute was interpreted purposively to include both non-availability of candidates and non-advertisement of vacancies due to administrative delays such as the pandemic. Thus, the unfilled MD posts identified in 2019 were validly classified as backlog vacancies eligible for interchange with LD candidates. The Court held that since the petitioner had benchmark disability, was eligible, and had been denied appointment due to the arbitrary withdrawal of her initially allotted post, she was lawfully entitled to be appointed under the backlog MD vacancy. The Court also noted the constitutional goal of promoting substantive equality for disabled persons and held that rigid adherence to technicalities cannot defeat the protective intent of disability laws. The petition was allowed, and the Court directed the Commercial Tax Commissioner to appoint the petitioner as Shorthand Typist under Post Code 022 against the MD backlog vacancy.