1 CGHC010258652026 2026:CGHC:29556-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5269 of 2026 Yogesh Kumar Sahu S/o Late Dhal Singh Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o Quarter No. H-102, Housing Board Colony, Gurur, District Balod, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The High Court Of Chhattisgarh Through The Registrar General, High Court Of Chhattisgarh At Bodri District - Bilaspur, C.G. 2 - The Registrar General High Court Of Chhattisgarh, At Bodri, District Bilaspur, C.G. 3 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) Though Its Secretary, Sector-19, North Block, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanmay Thomas, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 14/07/2026 1. Mr. Tanmay Thomas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 as well as Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks for the following relief(s): 2 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/order/directions of appropriate nature and set aside the proviso to the Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh High Court Services (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 2017 to the extent of its variance with Section 34 Clause 2 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/order/directions of appropriate nature andset-aside the 'Note-2' of the order dated 22.05.2026 issued by the Respondent No.02 (Annexure P-2) and set aside the action of de-reservation of 02 posts earmarked for Physically Handicapped Category. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to further direct the Respondent No.03 to take appropriate steps as per Rules with respect to recruitment on 02 posts for physically disabled candidates including the petitioner in lieu of the advertisement dated as 25.09.2025 and in compliance of Section 34(2) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and appropriate. 10.5 Cost of the petition may also be given.” 3. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the respondent No.2 issued advertisement dated 25.09.2025 and initiated recruitment process for the 22 vacant post of Court Manager. Out of the 22 vacant posts, 02 posts were reserved for persons with disability and specifically earmarked for OA (One Arm) category. The petitioner is a physically disabled candidate who filled his application for the advertised post of Court Manager and applied under the Physically Handicapped category. The petitioner suffers from the disability of Both Legs (BL) but at the time of filling the application form there was no other option to apply in the physically disabled category other than OA category. As per the advertisement, the pre-requisite educational qualification for the post of Court Manager was Masters in Business Administration (MBA) and the 3 petitioner possesses the required educational qualification. The petitioner was issued admit card for the pre-examination and was allowed to appear in the written pre-examination and thereafter result was issued by the respondent No.2 on 20.01.2026. The petitioner was also issued admit card for mains examination and he appeared for the same. Thereafter, the statement of marks was issued by the respondent No.2 and the petitioner secured 22.5 marks in the mains examination. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 issued cut-off marks for mains examination but no cut- off marks were provided for the Physically Handicapped Quota. The respondent No.2 thereafter issued the final selection list of candidates vide order dated 22.05.2026. The respondent No.2 issued list of 20 candidates against the 22 vacancies. It is submitted that in the Note-02 of the impugned order dated 22.05.2026, the respondents de-reserved the 02 vacancies earmarked for physically handicapped candidates and earmarked the same SC (01 post) and ST (01 post). 4. The petitioner herein who suffers from benchmark disability of 70% is aggrieved by the action of de-reserving the 01 posts earmarked for the physically handicapped category and is further aggrieved by the action of the respondents of not taking any measures to fill up the same from candidates possessing other disabilities as per Section 34(2) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short, the Act of 2016) before their impugned action of de-reservation of posts earmarked for the physically handicapped category. 5. Mr. Thomas, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 'proviso' to Rule 9 (Reservation) of the Chhattisgarh High Court Services (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 2017 (for short, the Rules of 2017) is in contravention of Clause 2 of Section 34 of 4 the Act of 2016. Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules of 2017 provides that if suitable candidates are not available from any reserved category, the vacancy may be carried forward for only two years. Thereafter it shall be treated to be dereserved. Clause 2 of Section 34 of the Act of 2016 specifically provides that if suitable candidates with benchmark disability are not available then it may be first filled with interchange among candidates with other disabilities. The Clause 2 of Section 34 reads states that where in any recruitment year any vacancy cannot be filled up due to non- availability of a suitable person with benchmark disability or for any other sufficient reasons, such vacancy shall be carried forward in the succeeding recruitment year and if in the succeeding recruitment year also suitable person with benchmark disability is not available it may be first filled by interchange among the five categories and only when there is no person with disability available for the post in that year, the employer shall fill up the vacancy by appointment of a person, other than a person with disability. 6. Mr. Thomas further submits that proviso to Rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules, 2017 in comparison to 34(2) of the Act of 2016, excludes the part of provision to consideration of candidates possessing other disabilities/ interchangeability of category of disability in the event of non-availability of suitable candidate. The exclusion of the provision in the Rules of 2017 with respect to consideration from interchanging the category of disability creates a barrier for the persons possessing other category of disabilities from being considered in case of non-availability of candidate from desired category of disability. In a quick comparison of provisions, the Chhattisgarh Lower Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of service) Rules 2006, issued by the State of Chhattisgarh for rules with respect to recruitment of members of lower judicial service and the said 5 rules the provisions with respect to reservation of persons with benchmark disability candidates, the provisions with respect to procedure adapted upon non-availability of suitable candidates is envisaged in Rule 6(3) which reads as under: “….Provided that where in any recruitment year vacancy cannot be filled up due to non-availability of a suitable persons with benchmark disability or for any sufficient reasons, such vacancy shall be carried forward in the succeeding recruitment year and if in the succeeding recruitment year also suitable person with benchmark disability is not available, it may first be filled by interchange among the four categories and only when there is no person with disability available for the post in that year, the Appointing Authority shall fill up the vacancy by appointment of a person, other than a person with disability: Provided further that if the nature of vacancies in an establishment is such that a given category of person cannot be employed, the vacancies may be interchanged among the four categories with the prior approval of the appropriate Government." 7. The Chhattisgarh Higher Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 2006, issued by the State of Chhattisgarh for rules with respect to recruitment of members of higher judicial service and the said rules the provisions with respect to reservation of PwBD candidates, the provisions with respect to procedure adapted upon non-availability of suitable candidates is envisaged in Rule 6(3): “…..Provided that where in any recruitment year any vacancy cannot be filled up due to non-availability of a suitable persons with benchmark disability or for any sufficient reasons, such vacancy shall be carried forward in the succeeding recruitment year and if in the succeeding recruitment year also suitable person with benchmark disability is not available, it may first be filled by interchange among the four categories and only when 6 there is no person with disability available for the post in that year, such posts shall be treated as "Unreserved" 8. Mr. Thomas submits that when the proviso to Rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules, 2017 is compared to similar provisions of Rule 6 of Recruitment Rules for Higher Judicial Services and Lower Judicial Services respectively, there is a stark distinction in the both the provisions. for the purposes of comparison, the services of the post of Court Manager in the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana is governed by the High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1973 (for short, the Rules of 1973). Rule 23-A (2) (ii) of the said rules provides for reservation of disabled person in recruitment. Rule 23-A (2) (ii) of the Rules of 1973 provides that where in any recruitment year any vacancy cannot be filled up due to non- availability of a suitable person with benchmark disability or for any other sufficient reasons, such vacancy shall be carried forward in the succeeding recruitment year and if in the succeeding recruitment year also suitable person with benchmark disability is not available, it may first be filled up by interchange among the five categories and only when there is no person with disability available for the post in that year, the vacant post(s) shall be filled up by appointment of a person, other than a person with disability; provided that if the nature of vacancies in the establishment is such that a given category of person cannot be employed, the vacancies may be interchanged among the five categories with the prior approval of the Chief Justice. The Act of 2016 is a welfare legislation passed for the development of disabled persons by granting certain benefits to the persons of disabilities in the matters of employment and the Act of 2016 received the assent of the Hon'ble President of India on 27.12.2016 and thus, carries the full force of law. Clause 2 of Section 34 of the Act of 7 2016 envisages that in the event a suitable candidate is not available for two consecutive recruitment years, then an endeavour to recruit a candidate by interchanging the category of disability should be made. Clause 2 of Section 34 of the Act of 2016 ensures equal protection and opportunities among candidates possessing distinct disabilities and the same is fundamental to the rights of the disabled candidates with benchmark disability like the petitioner herein. "Note-2" contained in order dated 22.05.2026 to the extent of the impugned procedure being in contravention with the object of the Clause-2 of Section 34 of the Act of 2016. The respondent No.02 has without suitable making an endeavour to find candidates from other category of disabilities has directly proceeded to de-reserve the 02 posts of PH category to 01 post for SC and 01 post of ST category. The very fact a person suffers from any kind of disability is unfortunate and the Act of 2016 itself provides that the State shall not discriminate between the people of disabilities in the matters of employment but the action of de-reserving the posts earmarked for physically handicapped candidates without thorough efforts to find disabled candidates from other category who can carry out the functions and work of the post to the satisfaction of the Appointing Authority and also possess the prerequisite educational qualifications for the post of Court Manager. The Respondent No.02 did not even issue separate cut-off marks in mains examination for the post of PH candidates and proceeded to de-reserve the posts earmarked PH candidates. 9. Mr. Thomas further places reliance on Article 253 of the Constitution of India and the judgment of the Apex Court in In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Service, {2025 INSC 300}, Union of India & Ors v. National federation of Blind & Ors, {2013 (10) SCC 8 772}, and Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission and others, (2021) 5 SCC 370. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 submits that the petition is wholly misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. It is contended that the advertisement specifically earmarked two posts for candidates suffering from One Arm (OA) disability in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules and the identified disabilities prescribed for the post of Court Manager. The petitioner admittedly suffers from Both Legs (BL) disability and, therefore, did not belong to the notified disability category against which the vacancies were reserved. Merely because the online application portal did not provide any other option, the petitioner cannot claim eligibility for a post reserved for a different category of benchmark disability. 11. It is further submitted that Section 34(2) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 does not confer an absolute or immediate right of interchangeability of disability categories. The provision contemplates that where a reserved vacancy cannot be filled in a recruitment year, the vacancy shall first be carried forward to the succeeding recruitment year, and only if a suitable benchmark disabled candidate is still unavailable in the succeeding recruitment year can interchange among disability categories be considered. In the present case, the vacancies were governed by Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh High Court Services (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 2017, which provides that if suitable candidates are not available, the vacancies may be carried forward for two recruitment years and thereafter treated as de- reserved. The proviso to Rule 9 has statutory force and has not been declared unconstitutional. Therefore, the respondents acted strictly in 9 accordance with the governing Rules. It is also submitted that the petitioner lacks locus to challenge the de-reservation of the vacancies since he was never eligible to be considered against the vacancies reserved for the OA category. Having participated in the recruitment process with full knowledge of the terms of the advertisement, the petitioner cannot, after being unsuccessful, seek alteration of the eligibility conditions or reservation policy. 12.Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/CGPSC submits that the respondent No. 3 is only responsible for conducting the examination and the contesting party in this case would be the respondents No. 1 and 2. 13.Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. Admittedly, the advertisement earmarked the two reserved vacancies exclusively for candidates belonging to the One Arm (OA) category. The petitioner admittedly suffers from Both Legs (BL) disability and was, therefore, ineligible to be considered against the notified reserved vacancies. The mere fact that he was permitted to participate in the examination cannot confer any enforceable right to appointment contrary to the terms of the advertisement. The challenge to the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules, 2017 is also devoid of merit. The respondents have acted in accordance with the statutory Rules governing the recruitment. Unless the Rule itself is declared unconstitutional or ultra vires, the action taken in conformity therewith cannot be faulted. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the impugned proviso is manifestly arbitrary or that the respondents have acted in violation of any mandatory statutory provision. 14.The reliance placed upon Section 34(2) of the Act of 2016 is misplaced. 10 The said provision does not entitle the petitioner, who belongs to a different disability category, to claim appointment against vacancies specifically identified for another category. The question of interchangeability arises only in the circumstances contemplated by the statute and cannot be invoked by an ineligible candidate to claim consideration contrary to the notified recruitment conditions. There is no dispute with regard to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, the said judgments lay down the broad principles regarding protection of the rights of persons with benchmark disabilities and the obligation of the State to ensure reservation. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to establish any arbitrariness, illegality or violation of statutory or constitutional provisions in the action of the respondents warranting interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16.Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Anu / Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.07.15 19:36:59 +0530