The Rajasthan high court has ruled that denying the benefit of reservation to a hearing impaired candidate merely on the ground that he is a native of another state is unconstitutional and illegal and asked the state government to pay the petitioner candidate ₹10,000 as costs.
A bench of chief justice Manindra Mohan Srivastava and justice Munnuri Laxman rejected the state government’s argument that giving the benefit of reservation under the Rajasthan Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2018 to a candidate from Uttar Pradesh would be against the interests of persons with disabilities in the state of Rajasthan.
The ruling came in an appeal filed by the state government against a single bench decision directing the appointment of petitioner Manish Chauhan to the post of Assistant Professor (Mathematics), reserved exclusively for the Hearing Impaired (HI) category.
The State argued that the reservation of the physically handicapped (PH) category, being vertical reservation, the principles applicable in caste-based reservation would equally apply to the PH category reservation.
However, the bench said, “Such discrimination is constitutionally impermissible in view of provisions under Article 16(2) of the Constitution, which mandates against discrimination based on place of residence. There is no provision brought to our notice which provides that any scheme of any law made by the Parliament or by the State legislature, or any rules framed by any rule-making authority under the Central enactment, has provided for any scheme whereby a person otherwise eligible to be appointed against the post reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities would be confined only to residents of the State of Rajasthan. Thus, the domicile rule cannot be applied in a vacuum to deny the benefit of reservation only on the ground that the applicant is a resident of another State.”
{{/usCountry}}However, the bench said, “Such discrimination is constitutionally impermissible in view of provisions under Article 16(2) of the Constitution, which mandates against discrimination based on place of residence. There is no provision brought to our notice which provides that any scheme of any law made by the Parliament or by the State legislature, or any rules framed by any rule-making authority under the Central enactment, has provided for any scheme whereby a person otherwise eligible to be appointed against the post reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities would be confined only to residents of the State of Rajasthan. Thus, the domicile rule cannot be applied in a vacuum to deny the benefit of reservation only on the ground that the applicant is a resident of another State.”
{{/usCountry}}“We are of the view that the denial of the benefit of reservation to the candidate against the post reserved for the specially-abled HI category, only on the ground that he is a native of the State of Uttar Pradesh, is unconstitutional and illegal. Therefore, the view taken by the Single bench does not warrant any interference. The appeal filed by the State is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000 payable to the candidate,” the bench ruled.