HC has ruled that denial of relaxation in qualifying and selection criteria for persons with disabilities defeats the constitutional principle of real equality, directing the governments of Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh to frame clear guidelines to ensure such relaxations in all future recruitment processes.
Delivering the judgment, Harpreet Singh Brar emphasised that providing reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities was not a concession but a constitutional obligation aimed at achieving substantive equality. The court also directed all three governments to file compliance affidavits within three months.
The court was examining whether relaxation in selection standards for persons with disabilities was constitutionally justified while deciding three connected petitions. Answering the issue in the affirmative, the Bench held that differential treatment intended to remove disadvantages faced by persons with disabilities does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The court observed that equality cannot be reduced to uniform treatment and that identical standards applied to unequal circumstances often lead to injustice. Justice Brar noted that the State carries a responsibility to remove institutional and social barriers that prevent persons with disabilities from accessing genuine employment opportunities.
The Bench further directed the Haryana Chief Secretary to constitute a committee within two weeks to determine the extent of relaxation required in recruitment standards. The committee has been asked to finalise revised norms within four weeks in line with Union government notifications and Supreme Court rulings.
The report will subsequently be forwarded to the Haryana Public Service Commission, which has been directed to reconsider the candidature of petitioners who had approached the court after vacancies reserved for the physically handicapped category in recruitment to the Haryana State Pollution Control Board were not advertised.
The court ordered that candidates found eligible under relaxed norms should be recommended for appointment within two weeks of receipt of the committee report.
Highlighting broader challenges, the High Court observed that disadvantages faced by persons with disabilities stem not only from physical or mental conditions but also from entrenched social attitudes and institutional barriers. Justice Brar noted that ableism often results in exclusion from education and employment despite adequate qualifications.
Referring to constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 16, 21 and 41, the court held that meaningful equality requires proactive steps by the State to dismantle barriers and ensure fair participation of persons with disabilities in public employment. The Bench concluded that without reasonable accommodations such as age relaxation and modified selection criteria, the constitutional promise of equal opportunity would remain merely symbolic rather than transformative.
