1 CGHC010327722026 2026:CGHC:39863 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6322 of 2026 Govind Prasad Sahu S/o Mani Ram Sahu Aged About 36 Years Presently Working As Physical Training Instructor At Govt. Higher Secondary School Malda (A), Block Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Public Instructions, Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director (Education) Bilaspur Division, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 11.09.2026 SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2026.09.16 17:25:17 +0530 2 1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking the following relief: “10.1 That, to set-aside the show cause notice dated 19.01.2023 in the light of the observation made by the Hon’ble Court in W.P.(S) No. 962/2023 order dated 03.07.2026 and provide the consequential benefits. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that pursuant to the advertisement dated 9.3.2019 issued by the Director, Directorate of Public Instructions, Raipur inviting applications for filling up various posts of Lecturer, Teacher and Assistant Teacher, the petitioner, who was having requisite qualification, applied for the post of Teacher (Physical Education). It was mentioned in the advertisement that posts shall be reserved for Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) and Ex-army men in accordance with the Acts/Rules/Government Orders/instructions issued by the Government from time to time. It was also clarified in the advertisement that under the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (49 of 2016), reservation of posts shall be 7%, in accordance with the percentage applicable in the State. 3. The petitioner, who is visually challenged, successfully participated in the selection process and after due verification of the documents, he was appointed on the post of Teacher (Physical Education) vide order dated 24.8.2021 (Annexure P/5). Since his appointment, he has been discharging his duties with utmost sincerity and dedication. However, vide impugned show cause notice dated 19.1.2023 the Joint Director, Education Division, Bilaspur directed the petitioner to submit his reply 3 within 10 days as to why his services on the post of Teacher (Physical Education) be not terminated on account of being ineligible for this post as only persons with disability of OA (One Arm Affected) and HH (Hard of Hearing) are considered appropriate for this post by the Committee constituted by the Directorate of Public Instructions, Raipur. The petitioner has challenged the said show cause notice by filing WPS No.1236/2023. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the advertisement dated 9.3.2019 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Director, Directorate of Public Instructions, Raipur two posts of Teacher (Physical Education) were reserved for persons with disability. In the entire advertisement, it was not specifically mentioned as to persons with which nature of disability would be eligible or ineligible for the post advertised. The petitioner having 40% visual impairment submitted applications and was appointed on the post of Teacher (Physical Education). Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been working on the said post since 24.8.2021 but he has been served with a notice (Annexure P/8) seeking his explanation as to why his services be not terminated as his disability (Visually Challenged) does not fall in the category of disability (OA-One Arm Affected and HH-Hard of Hearing) prescribed for the post of Teacher (Physical Education). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 has been enacted to give effect to the Proclamation on the Full Participation and Equality of the People with Disabilities in the Asian and Pacific Region. The Act defines “persons 4 with disabilities” as those having not less than forty per cent of any disability and identified seven categories of the disabilities namely, blindness; low vision; leprosy-cured; hearing impairment; locomotor disability; mental retardation; and mental illness. They submit that the purpose of the aforesaid Act is for empowerment of the persons with disability so that the disabled persons may also feel themselves in the mainstream of the society. In the instant case, the petitioner is having 40% visual disability. There is no law or rule framed by the State or the Central Government depriving the disabled persons having visual impairment from getting employment of Teacher (Physical Education). Therefore, the petition may be allowed and the impugned notice (Annexure P/8) may be quashed and the relief sought for may be granted in favour of the petitioner. Reliance has been placed on the order dated 22.4.2024 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No.526/2013 in the matter of Rajdhani Yadav Vs. Collector, Korea and another which has been subsequently affirmed by the learned Division Bench vide judgment dated 6.11.2024 in WA No.717/2024 in the case of the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Baikunthpur Vs. Collector, Korea and another. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the case of the petitioner is identical to WPS No. 962 of 2023 (Shiv Shankar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and others), which was decided by this Court on 03rd of July, 2026 6. Learned counsel for the State would not oppose the aforesaid submission of the petitioner. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5 8. The petitioner was appointed pursuant to a public advertisement dated 09.03.2019 on the post of Teacher (Physical Education) against vacancies reserved for Persons with Disabilities. It is not in dispute that both petitioner possess benchmark disability in the category of visual impairment and that he was found eligible by the Selection Committee after scrutiny of his educational qualifications, disability certificates and other testimonials. Their appointments were made after completion of the entire selection process and he continued to discharge his duties without any allegation regarding the quality of his work or misconduct. 9. The respondents have failed to place on record any statutory provision, rule, notification or order issued under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 prescribing that persons with blindness or low vision are ineligible for appointment to the said post. It has not been shown to have been issued in exercise of any statutory power under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 or the Rules framed thereunder. An executive recommendation, having no statutory force, cannot curtail the rights guaranteed under the Act nor can it become the foundation for terminating appointments already validly made. 10. Significantly, Clause 4(3)(b) of the General Administration Department Circular dated 27.09.2014 itself declares that the list of identified posts issued by the Social Welfare Department is not exhaustive. The said clause expressly authorises every department to identify additional suitable posts, but simultaneously prohibits any department or establishment from excluding any post already identified for reservation. The legislative intent underlying the said circular is thus to progressively expand employment opportunities for persons with 6 disabilities and not to restrict them. The respondents have not produced any material to demonstrate that the post of Teacher (Physical Education) stood validly excluded for persons with visual impairment by any competent statutory authority. On the contrary, the respondents seek to restrict the eligibility of candidates solely on the basis of Annexure R/2. Such an exercise is contrary even to the aforesaid Government Circular, which permits only expansion of identified posts and not reduction of the rights available to persons with disabilities. 11. The advertisement dated 09.03.2019 also did not prescribe that only candidates suffering from OA or HH disability would be eligible for appointment to the post of Teacher (Physical Education). Rather, it merely stated that reservation would be governed by the applicable Acts, Rules and Government instructions. Had the respondents intended to restrict eligibility to particular categories of disability, the same ought to have been expressly mentioned in the advertisement itself. After inviting applications from all eligible persons with benchmark disabilities, permitting them to participate in the entire selection process, declaring them successful, issuing appointment orders and allowing them to serve for a considerable period, the respondents are estopped from introducing a fresh condition of eligibility, not contained either in the advertisement or in any statutory provision. 12. The action of the respondents is also manifestly arbitrary. The petitioner neither concealed any material fact nor secured appointment by fraud or misrepresentation. His disability certificate was available 7 with the respondents from the very inception. The respondents themselves verified all relevant documents before issuing appointment orders. Consequently, the respondents cannot seek to invalidate their own decision on the basis of a subsequent administrative opinion. 13. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is a beneficial and social welfare legislation enacted to secure equality, dignity, participation and non-discrimination for persons with disabilities. Any interpretation restricting employment opportunities under the Act must have clear statutory sanction. In the absence of such authority, executive instructions or committee recommendations cannot be permitted to defeat the object of the legislation. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired In Judicial Service, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 481, observed in para 3 of its judgment as under: “Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law." This prophetic dissenting opinion of Justice John Marshall Harlan in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) can well be said to capture the spirit of what we are called upon to decide today. To draw a parallel, the Constitution of India is blind to the differences between able-bodied and differently abled citizens in matters of providing equal opportunity to all citizens in all spheres of life, including employment, and envisages equality and non-discrimination. This principle is to be enforced by the Constitutional Courts, by adopting a rights-based approach, providing an enabling environment and atmosphere, and ensuring that PwD are provided with equal opportunities, and accommodation that they need and deserve in order to make sure that they can lead their 8 lives with dignity, realising their fullest potential without facing discrimination. Holding this concept of equality and non-discrimination as the basic foundation on which all issues arising from the cases on hand are to be decided, we proceed further to deal with them.” 15. In the afore-cited case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the appointment of a judicial aspirant in judicial service, who was a visually impaired candidate, after detailed discussion, has observed in para 67 of the judgment as under: “67. … Now, it is high time that we view the right against disability -based discrimination, as recognized in the RPwD Act, 2016, of the same stature as a fundamental right, thereby ensuring that no candidate is denied consideration solely on account of their disability. Further, as extensively discussed, the principle of reasonable accommodation, as enshrined in international conventions, established jurisprudence, and the RPwD Act, 2016, mandate that accommodations be provided to PwDs as a prerequisite to assessing their eligibility. In the light of the above, any indirect discrimination that results in the exclusion of PwDs, whether through rigid cut-offs or procedural barriers, must be interfered with in order to uphold substantive equality...” 16. In the matter of Rajdhani Yadav (supra), the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III was reserved for disabled person having low vision but against that post the petitioner having locomotor disability was appointed. Since no disabled candidate having low vision was available, hence appointment of disabled person having locomotor disability was upheld by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court which has been subsequently affirmed by the learned Division Bench in the 9 matter of Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Baikunthpur (supra). 17. In the result, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned show cause notice dated 19.1.2023 (Annexure P/6) issued by respondent No.3/Joint Director, Education, Bilaspur Division is hereby quashed. Since the petitioner is already in employment, no further order is required to be passed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib