State cannot put ‘arbitrary ceiling’ on disability limits when RPwD Act does not prescribe any: SC

The Supreme Court has laid down that the state cannot impose “arbitrary” upper limits of disability to exclude candidates with special needs from jobs when they are otherwise equipped to perform their official responsibilities.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said the Rights to Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, only defines the base threshold or the “floor” for reservation eligibility. None of the provisions of the 2016 Act indicates that an upper limit could be prescribed in the matter of adjudging the suitability of a candidate for a particular post.

The legislature, through the 2016 Act, intended only to create a threshold of inclusion, specifically designating 40% as the minimum requirement to qualify for benchmark disability status.

“The RPwD Act defines the ‘floor’ for reservation eligibility but does not empower the State to create an arbitrary ‘ceiling’ that excludes those with higher degrees of disability, provided they are otherwise capable of performing the functional requirements of the role through reasonable accommodation,” Justice Mehta, who authored the judgment, observed.

The Supreme Court invoked the Reasonable Accommodation Principle that allowed adjustments to be made to enable disabled persons to effectively counter the barriers posed by their disability.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by an advocate suffering from 90% permanent locomotor disability due to left shoulder disarticulation. Though he scored high marks in the written test conducted by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission for the post of Assistant District Attorney, his candidature was rejected on the ground that the percentage of his disability exceeded the upper limit of 60% advertised for the job.

The State High Court had rejected his plea, compelling the lawyer to move the apex court, which ordered his appointment to the post in two weeks.

The top court found no intelligible or rational criterion in the prescription of the upper limit of 60% disability. It said the candidate had functioned competently as a law professional despite his disability for 15 years.

“This upper limit of disability has clearly been prescribed in sheer ignorance of the principle of reasonable accommodation, and hence the same cannot be sustained in law,” Justice Mehta observed.