60% Disability Cap for ADA Post Arbitrary – Appointment Directed | SC

Case Details: Prabhu Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh - [2026] 184 taxmann.com 386 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Vikram Nath & Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
• P.V. Dinesh, Sr. Adv., Subhash Chandran K R, Ms Krishna L R, Ms Anna Oommen, Anirudh K P, John Thomas Arakal, Advs. & Biju P Raman, AOR for the Appellant.
• Arman Roop Sharma, Ms Shimpy Arman Sharma, Ms Shivangi Goel, Ms Priyanka Dubey, Ms Saumya Mishra, Advs. & Dr Vinod Kumar Tewari, AOR for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the appellant, a law graduate and practising advocate, suffered from a 90 per cent permanent locomotor disability. The Respondent No. 3-Commission advertised 24 posts of Assistant District Attorney (ADA), reserving 2 posts for persons with disabilities and stipulating that candidates in the disabled category must have not less than 40 per cent and not more than 60 per cent disability in one leg or one arm.

The appellant applied with his disability and experience certificates, appeared in the written test, qualified under the physically handicapped (general) category, was interviewed and was recommended by the Commission for appointment under the physically handicapped quota.

The Recommendation list was forwarded to the State Government, which issued appointment orders to 16 of 17 recommended candidates, withholding the appellant’s name and not offering him an appointment.

On seeking reasons under the Right to Information Act, the appellant was informed that his recommendation was not accepted because his 90 per cent disability exceeded the 60 per cent upper limit prescribed in the advertisement.

The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the denial of appointment and contending that prescribing a 60 per cent upper limit conflicted with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The High Court dismissed the writ petition. The appeal was then made before the Supreme Court.

It was noted that there was no tangible material showing a foundational basis or expert consultation for fixing the 60 per cent ceiling.

Further, it was noted that the fixation of the 60 per cent upper limit of disability for selection against posts reserved for persons with disabilities in the subject advertisement was not preceded by any objective evaluation of the functional requirements of the post or by any expert consultation as contemplated under the statutory scheme of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court observed that, in the absence of any rational basis or intelligible criterion for prescribing such a restriction, the upper limit of disability was clearly unjust and invalid.

The Supreme Court held that the denial of appointment to the appellant for post of the ADA, despite having succeeded in competitive examination and interview and having been recommended for the appointment, was arbitrary, unjustified and in gross violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and so also mandate of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Thus, the respondent State was to be directed to issue the appointment letter to the appellant for the post of ADA in the subject recruitment process.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Prabhu Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh [C.W.P. No. 3634 of 2019], Dated 29-09-2020 (para 41) set aside
• V. Surendra Mohan v. State of T.N. (2019) 4 SCC 237 (para 24) distinguished
• Vikash Kumar v. U.P.S.C. (2021) 5 SCC 370 (para 26) followed

List of Cases Referred to

• Prabhu Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh [C.W.P. No. 3634 of 2019, dated 29-9-2020] (para 3)
• Vikash Kumar v. U.P.S.C. (2021) 5 SCC 370 (para 13)
• V. Surendra Mohan v. State of T.N. (2019) 4 SCC 237 (para 13)
• Kabir Pahariya v. National Medical Commission 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1025 (para 32)
• Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Services 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3130 (para 32)
• Anmol v. Union of India 2025 SCC OnLine SC 387 (para 32).