The Supreme Court referred to the principle of reasonable accommodation, which allowed for adjustments to be made to enable persons with disabilities to effectively deal with the barriers that their disability presents. | Photo credit: Sushil Kumar Verma
The Supreme Court held that a state cannot impose an “arbitrary” upper limit on disability to exclude candidates with special needs from employment if they are otherwise equipped to perform their official duties.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016 only defines a basic threshold or “floor” for eligibility for reservation. None of the provisions of the 2016 Act states that an upper limit could be set in the matter of assessing the suitability of a candidate for a specific job.
Through the 2016 Act, the Legislature only intended to create a threshold for inclusion, specifically setting 40% as the minimum requirement to obtain comparative disability status.
“The RPwD Act defines a ‘condition’ for reservation eligibility but does not empower the state to create an arbitrary ‘ceiling’ that excludes persons with a higher degree of disability if they are otherwise able to fulfill the functional requirements of the role through reasonable accommodation,” observed Justice Mehta, who authored the judgment.
The Supreme Court referred to the principle of reasonable accommodation, which allowed for adjustments to be made to enable persons with disabilities to effectively deal with the barriers that their disability presents.
The court heard an appeal filed by a lawyer who, as a result of the disarticulation of his left shoulder, suffers from a 90% permanent mobility disability. Although 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 grounds that his disability percentage exceeded the upper limit of 60% advertised for the job.
The state high court rejected his plea, prompting the lawyer to move the high court, which ordered his appointment to the post in two weeks.
The Supreme Court did not find any comprehensible or rational criterion in the prescription of the upper limit of 60% disability. It said the candidate had functioned competently as a lawyer despite his disability for 15 years.
“This upper limit of disability has clearly been prescribed in complete ignorance of the principle of reasonable accommodation and therefore the same cannot be followed in law,” observed Justice Mehta.
Published – 21 March 2026 22:05 IST
