Introduction:
In a significant judgment reaffirming the supremacy of statutory mandates over executive instructions, the Patna High Court has held that recruitment to posts reserved for persons with disabilities (PwDs) must strictly adhere to the scheme prescribed under Section 34(2) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and that any executive resolution or recruitment notification inconsistent with the parent statute cannot confer an enforceable right upon candidates. The ruling was delivered by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri while adjudicating a batch of writ petitions raising a common question concerning horizontal reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities in public employment, particularly the treatment of unfilled vacancies within PwD sub-categories.
The petitions arose from a large-scale recruitment process initiated by the Bihar Technical Service Commission for 6,379 posts of Junior Engineer pursuant to Advertisement No. 1 of 2019. The controversy centred around whether unfilled vacancies within one PwD sub-category could be diverted to the unreserved category without first being offered to candidates from other PwD sub-categories, and whether the State Government’s executive resolutions governing this process were in conformity with the statutory framework under the 2016 Act.
The petitioners sought enforcement of rights allegedly flowing from a General Administration Department Resolution dated 12 October 2017, while the State justified its actions by relying upon a subsequent Resolution dated 22 January 2021, issued to bring the recruitment framework in alignment with Section 34(2) of the Act. The Court’s decision not only resolved the immediate dispute but also laid down important principles governing the limits of executive power, the source of reservation rights, and the non-negotiable nature of statutory compliance in public recruitment.
Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioners:
The petitioners, represented by senior and other counsel, advanced a detailed challenge to the recruitment process on the ground that it deviated from the reservation framework originally promised by the State Government. They placed strong reliance on the Resolution dated 12 October 2017 issued by the General Administration Department, which provided for 4 per cent horizontal reservation for persons with disabilities and categorised such reservation into sub-groups such as visually handicapped, hearing handicapped, and mentally handicapped persons.
According to the petitioners, the 2017 Resolution created a legitimate expectation that if vacancies earmarked for one PwD sub-category remained unfilled, such vacancies would be filled by eligible candidates belonging to other PwD sub-categories, rather than being diverted to the unreserved category. They contended that this framework was consistent with the inclusive spirit of disability reservation and ensured that the full quota meant for PwDs was actually utilised for their benefit.
The petitioners argued that the subsequent Resolution dated 22 January 2021 fundamentally altered this position by permitting unfilled vacancies of a particular PwD sub-category to be carried forward to the unreserved category without first exhausting candidates from other identified PwD sub-categories. This, according to them, resulted in a situation where vacancies meant for persons with disabilities were effectively lost to the general category, defeating the very object of horizontal reservation.
It was further contended that the application of the 2021 Resolution to a recruitment process initiated in 2019 was arbitrary and unjust, particularly when the petitioners had participated in the selection process with the understanding that the 2017 Resolution would govern their rights. The petitioners claimed that eligible candidates belonging to one PwD sub-category were denied appointment despite the availability of vacancies within the overall PwD quota, solely because of the altered method of vacancy adjustment introduced later.
The petitioners urged the Court to interpret Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 in a manner that maximised opportunities for PwDs, and argued that the State Government, being the “appropriate Government” under the Act, possessed sufficient discretion to structure recruitment in a manner that ensured full utilisation of the reserved quota. They submitted that the 2017 Resolution was a valid exercise of executive power and that the subsequent deviation through the 2021 Resolution was legally impermissible insofar as it diluted the benefits available to persons with disabilities.
In essence, the petitioners sought a direction to the State and the recruiting authority to fill unutilised PwD vacancies from other PwD sub-categories, as envisaged under the 2017 Resolution, and to grant them appointment on that basis.
Arguments on Behalf of the State and the Respondents:
The State of Bihar and the other respondents resisted the petitions by placing reliance on the statutory scheme of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, contending that the source of the right to reservation in public employment for persons with disabilities is the Act itself and not any executive resolution. They argued that while the State Government is empowered to issue resolutions and notifications to facilitate implementation of the Act, such executive instruments cannot override or modify the statutory mandate laid down by Parliament.
The respondents submitted that Section 34(2) of the 2016 Act specifically prescribes the manner in which vacancies reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities are to be filled during recruitment. According to them, this provision does not permit unrestricted inter se adjustment of vacancies across PwD sub-categories in the manner contemplated by Clauses 2(viii) and 2(ix) of the 2017 Resolution. Consequently, the 2017 Resolution was inconsistent with the statutory scheme and could not be relied upon to claim any enforceable right.
The State further argued that it was precisely due to this inconsistency that the General Administration Department was compelled to issue the Resolution dated 22 January 2021, which sought to realign the recruitment framework with the requirements of Section 34(2). The respondents contended that once the State realised that the earlier resolution was not in conformity with the parent Act, it was not only entitled but duty-bound to correct the position through a subsequent notification.
It was also submitted that the Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot undertake the task of redesigning or restructuring a recruitment process, particularly when such process is governed by a statutory scheme. The respondents cautioned that granting relief to the petitioners would amount to judicially rewriting the recruitment rules and compelling the authorities to act contrary to the statute.
The respondents maintained that no vested or accrued right could arise from an executive resolution that is ultra vires the governing statute, and that candidates participating in a recruitment process do so subject to the overarching statutory framework. On this basis, they urged the Court to dismiss the petitions.
Court’s Reasoning and Judgment:
After carefully examining the rival submissions, the Patna High Court undertook a detailed analysis of the constitutional and statutory principles governing reservation for persons with disabilities. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri began by emphasising that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, being a central legislation, is the sole source of the right to reservation in public employment for persons with benchmark disabilities. Any executive action in this field must therefore strictly conform to the provisions of the Act.
The Court noted that Section 34 of the Act provides for reservation in favour of persons with benchmark disabilities, while Section 34(2) specifically lays down the manner in which such reserved vacancies are to be dealt with during the recruitment process. While the State Government, as the “appropriate Government”, is empowered to grant age relaxation and other permissible concessions, it does not possess the authority to alter or rewrite the statutory mode of recruitment prescribed under Section 34(2).
Reiterating the settled principle that executive instructions cannot override statutory provisions, the Court held that any resolution or notification issued by the Government must yield to the parent enactment in case of inconsistency. The Bench found that Clauses 2(viii) and 2(ix) of the Resolution dated 12 October 2017 were not in strict conformity with the scheme prescribed under Section 34(2) of the 2016 Act. As a result, the very foundation of the recruitment framework relied upon by the petitioners was legally flawed.
The Court observed that once the foundational resolution itself is ultra vires, the entire recruitment process undertaken on its basis becomes legally vulnerable. In such circumstances, no enforceable right can accrue in favour of any candidate seeking appointment under that framework. The Bench made it clear that the Court cannot direct the continuation, modification, or restructuring of a recruitment process that is not rooted in statutory compliance.
Justice Chaudhuri candidly acknowledged that the recruitment process had already undergone several stages and that select lists had been prepared. However, he underscored that administrative convenience or passage of time cannot validate an illegal process. In a key passage, the Court held that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, it is not expected to assume the role of a recruiting authority or to redesign the selection mechanism when the statutory basis itself is defective.
The Court further noted that the issuance of the 2021 Resolution was an acknowledgment by the State that the earlier framework required correction to align with Section 34(2) of the Act. Where a rule framed by the Government through delegated legislation is found to be inconsistent with the statutory scheme, the executive is empowered to issue a subsequent rule in conformity with the parent Act.
Accordingly, the High Court rejected the petitioners’ reliance on the 2017 Resolution and held that since the foundational notification was contrary to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, no right to appointment could be claimed on its basis. The writ petitions were dismissed, with the Court firmly reiterating that statutory mandates cannot be diluted by executive discretion.