1 CGHC010281062020 2026:CGHC:30613 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5229 of 2020 Dinesh Kumar Dewangan S/o Thakur Prasad Dewangan, Aged About 38 Years R/o Tikrapara Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Secretary Chhattisgarh Public Servcie Commission Shankar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) with WPS No. 843 of 2021 Anita Pradhan W/o Shri Sudam Pradhan Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Saria, Ward No. 02, Block Baramkela, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 3 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent with WPS No. 1213 of 2021 Teekendra Sahu S/o Shriram Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Village And Post Kandel Block Dhamtari District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Secretary Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Shankar Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Respective Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate Ms. Zainab Vanak, Advocate For Respective Respondent(s) : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20/07/2026 1. These petitions have been preferred against the corrigendum dated 23.11.2019 and 05.09.2020 of advertisement dated 23.01.2019 issued by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (for short, “CGPSC”) for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor in various disciplines, i.e. Commerce, Physics and Hindi, etc. 3 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the original advertisement dated 23.01.2019 did not provide reservation for persons with disabilities, and consequently, WPS No. 1137 of 2019 was filed by one Ramakant Singh Chandel and four others, wherein the coordinate Bench vide order dated 26.04.2019 issued a direction to the respondent authorities to rearrange the reservation for persons with disabilities strictly in accordance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short, RPwD Act, 2016) and the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India from time to time. They would also submit that pursuant to the order passed in WPS No. 1137 of 2019, the CGPSC issued a corrigendum dated 23.11.2019 & 05.09.2020, whereby reservation was extended to persons suffering from disabilities categorized as Orthopedic Affectation (OA), One Leg (OL), and Blindness and Low Vision (BLV); however, the said corrigendum was not issued according to the provisions of Section 34(1) of the RPwD Act, 2016. 3. They would contend that the respondents were directed to keep one post vacant for each of the physically challenged categories in Commerce, Physics, and Hindi subjects respectively. It is further argued that the petitioners in WPS No. 5229 of 2020 and WPS No. 1213 of 2021 are persons suffering from Hearing Impairment, a Benchmark Disability recognized under Section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, whereas, in WPS No. 843 of 2021, the petitioner suffers from disability of Locomotor (both legs). They specifically sought for a direction to the respondents to provide reservation and consider their candidatures for appointment. 4. They would further contend that though a specific direction was issued to the respondents to provide reservation strictly in accordance with law, but they failed to comply with the said direction. The petitioners accordingly pray that these petitions may be allowed. 4 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners and submit that initially an advertisement was issued on 23.01.2019. Said advertisement was subject matter of WPS No. 1137 of 2019, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to provide reservation strictly in accordance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that pursuant to the said order, a corrigendum dated 23.11.2019 & 05.09.2020 was issued, and proper participation was offered to the candidates with disabilities. It is also argued that the petitioners participated in the recruitment process and, being unsuccessful, they preferred these petitions challenging the advertisement after completion of the recruitment process. It is further contended that in two of the petitions, the petitioners have not claimed any substantive relief for themselves, and accordingly, petitions deserve to be dismissed. 6. Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the CGPSC would submit that an advertisement was issued by the CGPSC pursuant to the recommendation made by the State Government with regard to reservation of Persons with Disabilities. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 8. Section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 defines ‘person with benchmark disability’ means a person with not less than forty per cent. of a specified disability where specified disability has not been defined in measurable terms and includes a person with disability where specified disability has been defined in measurable terms, as certified by the certifying authority. 9. The "Benchmark Disability" recognizes the following specified categories of disabilities: 1. Blindness 2. Low-vision 5 3. Leprosy Cured persons 4. Hearing Impairment 5. Locomotor Disability 6. Dwarfism 7. Intellectual Disability 8. Mental Illness 9. Autism Spectrum Disorder 10. Cerebral Palsy 11. Muscular Dystrophy 12. Chronic Neurological conditions 13. Specific Learning Disabilities 14. Multiple Sclerosis 15. Speech and Language disability 16. Thalassemia 17. Hemophilia 18. Sickle cell disease 19. Multiple Disabilities including deaf-blindness 20. Acid Attack victims 21. Parkinson's disease. 10.In this batch of petitions, it is evident that the respondents have provided reservation arbitrarily and at their own discretion discarding the directions issued in WPS No. 1137 of 2019, the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India from time to time. 11.The manner in which the advertisement and the subsequent corrigendum were issued by the respondents reflects a disregard for the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No. 1137 of 2019, as well as the mandate of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Under Section 34(1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, a minimum of 3% reservation is mandated for persons with Benchmark Disabilities in direct recruitment to government posts. The State Government's circular dated 29.08.2018 6 provides 7% reservation to the candidates suffering from Benchmark Disabilities. The respondent authorities, including the recruiting agency under a legal obligation to provide reservation as per the State policy and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. 12.By virtue of interim orders passed in these petitions, one post has been kept vacant against each of the respective petitioners. 13.Having considered the facts discussed above, respondent authorities are directed to earmark posts of Assistant Professors (Commerce, Physics and Hindi) strictly in accordance with the circular dated 29.09.2018. They shall provide posts for candidates with specified Benchmark Disability of Hearing Impairment & Locomotor (Both Legs); thereafter, the CGPSC shall immediately prepare a merit list for the above-mentioned reserved posts for the candidates who meet the specified benchmark. 14. If the petitioners are found suitable and they fulfill prescribed eligibility criteria upon evaluation, their names shall be considered for appointment against the respective reserved posts. 15. Accordingly, these petitions are hereby disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim