CM-4871-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-2008-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (119) CM-4871-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-2008-2026 Date of Decision : July 21, 2026 Ravinder Singh .. Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Shantanu Bansal, Advocate, for the appellant. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL) CM-4871-LPA-2026 Present application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 34 days in filing the appeal. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed. Delay of 34 days in filing the appeal is condoned. LPA-2008-2026 1. Present Letter Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 13.05.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.14837 of 2026 by which, the claim of the petitioner (appellant herein) that the inter change of the category of the Physically Handicapped, the benefit of selection and appointment should be given to the appellant qua a HARSHA RANI 2026.07.27 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-4871-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-2008-2026 2 post of Clerk as advertised by the respondents vide Advertisement No.15 of 2024 dated 09.08.2024, has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argues that the appellant is Physically Handicapped being visually impaired and competed for the post of Clerk under the post reserved for the physically handicapped category. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the posts were reserved for the other categories of the physically handicapped but against such reservation, nobody was found eligible and therefore, by the change of the category, the appellant should have been appointed against the other category, which has not been accepted by the learned Single Judge by ignoring certain facts and therefore, the order dated 13.05.2026 (though inadvertently mentioned as 13.05.2025) passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record with his able assistance. 5. It may be noticed that a separate reservation has been provided for each category of the physically handicapped and it is not a composite reservation for physically handicapped people irrespective of the category to which they might belong. Once, a separate reservation has been given, the post which has been reserved for a particular category belonging to the physically handicapped, the same has to be filled from such reserved category only in order to fulfill the percentage of reservation given to such category. HARSHA RANI 2026.07.27 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-4871-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-2008-2026 3 6. Further as per Rule, in case any post reserved for a particular category of physically handicapped, is not filled up due to non-availability of a candidate, the same has to be carry forwarded to next year and it is only in the second selection process if the post is again not filled up from the category of physically handicapped for which the post was reserved, the interchangeability rule will apply. The relevant Rule which has been reproduced by the learned Single Judge i.e. Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is also reproduced hereunder for the ready reference: “(2) 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 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: Provided 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 five categories with the prior approval of the appropriate Government.” 7. On being asked whether, the post which is being sought by the interchangeability of the physically handicapped category, was earlier advertised and was not filled so as to operate the above mentioned provisions of Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, HARSHA RANI 2026.07.27 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-4871-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-2008-2026 4 2016, learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to substantiate the same. 8. The interchangeability is not available in the first selection process. As a result, the claim of the appellant cannot be accepted and has rightly been rejected by the learned Single Judge. 9. The judgment of the learned Single Judge can only be interfered with in case the same is perverse either on facts or on law and in the present case, learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show either of the same hence, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the present case. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 11. Civil miscellaneous application pending if any, also stands disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE July 21, 2026 (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) harsha JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No HARSHA RANI 2026.07.27 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document