After a prolonged legal battle of over 26 years, the Rajasthan High Court has finally granted justice to a visually impaired man who, despite being meritorious in the Rajasthan Administrative Service (RAS) examinations, was denied his rightful cadre placement due to the rigid disability assessment system of the State.

The petitioner had cleared the RAS examination in both 1999 and 2003, securing the 360th and 21st ranks respectively. However, instead of being appointed to the RAS cadre, he was placed under the Rajasthan Accounts Services. This decision was based on two grounds — he did not meet the minimum 40% disability benchmark for reservation under the disabled category and was also not considered medically fit for the RAS cadre under the general category.

Read also: Supreme Court Summons MoEFCC Secretary Over Delay In Oran Identification In Rajasthan

“I wish I had been more disabled — then perhaps the system would have seen me,” noted Justice Sameer Jain in his order, calling out the bitter irony of how the welfare system failed to accommodate those who don’t fit neatly into rigid disability classifications.

The High Court acknowledged that the petitioner’s condition — a visual impairment assessed at less than 20% — placed him in a paradoxical position. He was not disabled enough for reservation, yet not abled enough to qualify medically under the general category.

"In a system meant to uplift the disadvantaged, the petitioner stands at a paradox: disabled, yet not disabled enough to be seen," remarked the Court.

Read also: Rajasthan High Court Dismisses 'Motivated' PIL Against NTPC-Rajasthan JV, Imposes ₹1.5 Lakh Cost

Challenging his appointment in the Rajasthan Accounts Services instead of RAS, the petitioner argued that both cadres fall under “non-technical services” as per the 1975 Medical Examination Instructions. Therefore, rejecting him for RAS but accepting him for Rajasthan Accounts Services on medical grounds was arbitrary and violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

The State, in its defense, claimed that the petitioner’s case had been handled sensitively and he was given a posting in Accounts Services out of humanitarian concern. It also mentioned that disability-based reservations for RAS and IAS began only after 2005–2007. Despite this, his case was allegedly considered favorably due to his merit.

“That the petitioner had successfully qualified all stages of the Rajasthan Administrative Services Examination conducted in the year 1999 and was placed at 360th position... and secured a significantly improved 21st rank in 2003… under the 'general category' despite being eligible for OBC and having low vision,” recorded the Court.

Read also: Rajasthan High Court Grants Selection Scale to Retired Lecturer Despite Unsigned Application

The Court highlighted the contradiction: although his disability didn’t meet the 40% benchmark for reservation, he was still declared medically unfit under the general category. This, the Court observed, calls for a balanced and fair interpretation of administrative discretion and medical incapacity.

“This apparent contradiction between administrative and medical determinations calls for the application of the principle audi alteram partem i.e. the right to be heard…”

After examining the 1975 Guidelines, the Court found that both RAS and Rajasthan Accounts Services were classified as non-technical services and required no elevated physical standards. Hence, denying RAS appointment based on the same visual impairment was unjustified.

“Both are classified as ‘non-technical services’… any differentiation in treatment on the ground of medical unfitness due to low vision appears to be bereft of any rational basis…”

The Court also cited the ruling in ONGC Ltd. & Anr. v. Ranjan Tak & Anr., stating that excluding individuals with lesser degrees of disability who are otherwise qualified defeats the intent of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Holding the State’s justification to be flawed and discriminatory, the Court concluded that the petitioner’s long-standing exclusion was based on a misinterpretation of applicable guidelines.

As a result, the Court directed the State to:

• Compensate the petitioner with ₹5 lakhs for the humiliation and discrimination suffered, and
• Grant him placement in the RAS cadre as symbolic redress and institutional recognition of his merit.

“Such interpretation frustrates the legislative intent and compels a person to lament that they were not more disabled.”

This judgment stands as a significant reflection on the need for more humane, inclusive, and rational approaches in assessing disability and merit in public services.

Accordingly, the petition was disposed of.

Title: Dr. Deva Ram v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.