DATE: 07/11/2025
COURT: High Court of Haryana
BENCH: Justice Sandeep Sharma
FACTS:
The petitioner, a candidate with 50%
locomotor disability, applied for the post of Pharmacist (Allopathy) under the
Persons with Disabilities (PWD) quota pursuant to the Himachal Pradesh Health
Department’s notifications. He had completed B. Pharmacy in 2005, was
registered with the State Pharmacy Council, and attended counselling sessions
in 2020 and again in 2022 when the recruitment process was restarted on a
batch-wise basis. Though he participated in counselling, appeared before the
Medical Board, and was issued a disability certificate confirming 50% permanent
disability, he was not offered the appointment despite other similarly situated
candidates being selected.
The department justified its decision by
stating that the petitioner did not meet the required physical standards of the
post, specifically proper “standing and walking,” as prescribed in the
Government Notification dated 23.03.2012 and later updated by Notification
dated 26.09.2022 identifying categories of disabled persons suitable for posts
in the health department. Multiple medical evaluations were ordered by the High
Court—including assessments at DDU Hospital, IGMC Shimla, and PGIMER
Chandigarh. While the neurologist opined that the petitioner could perform
pharmacy duties with accommodation, the Departmental Committee and Medical
Board concluded that he did not fall within the categories of disability
suitable for the Pharmacist post under the governing notifications.
ISSUES:
The primary issue before the Court was
whether the petitioner, despite having a certified 50% locomotor disability,
was entitled to appointment as a Pharmacist under the PWD quota, and whether
the department was justified in denying him the post on the basis that he did
not satisfy the physical requirements—particularly standing and
walking—prescribed for the position under the relevant government
notifications. An ancillary issue was whether the medical and departmental
committees’ assessment could override the general disability certificate and
whether such denial violated principles laid down in judgments protecting the
rights of disabled persons.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The High Court dismissed the writ petition,
holding that the petitioner was not suitable for appointment to the post of
Pharmacist under the PWD category. The Court accepted the medical and
departmental assessments that he did not meet the specific physical
requirements for the role as defined in the government notifications, and
therefore the department committed no illegality in denying him the
appointment.
The Court reasoned that although the
petitioner had been certified as having 50% permanent disability, his
appointment was explicitly subject to the employer’s assessment of fitness as
per the disability certificate itself. The relevant government notifications
(2012 and 2022) identified categories of disabilities suitable for the
Pharmacist post and laid down mandatory physical requirements such as standing,
walking, manipulation of fingers, and handling equipment. The Medical Board,
Departmental Scrutiny Committee, and a specially constituted committee all
examined the petitioner’s medical condition—including expert neurological
opinion and PGIMER reports—and unanimously concluded that due to left
hemiparesis, locomotor limitations, and visual impairment (left homonymous
hemianopia), he did not meet the essential physical standards for performing
pharmacy duties. The Court emphasized that specialized expert bodies had
evaluated him thoroughly, and their findings could not be brushed aside.
The Court also distinguished the
petitioner’s reliance on judgments protecting the rights of disabled persons,
including Syed Bashir-Ud-Din Qadri and the Supreme Court’s suo motu decision on
visually impaired candidates in judicial services. It held that while
disability matters require sensitivity, the nature of work for a Pharmacist
involves substantial physical activity—treating patients, giving first aid,
assisting in emergencies, mobility within healthcare facilities, and
maintaining medical stores—which cannot be effectively performed without the
physical requirements prescribed. Unlike judicial roles, which are primarily
intellectual and can be reasonably accommodated, the Pharmacist’s duties
inherently demand mobility and physical capability. Since the statutory
notifications specifying suitability for the post were not challenged, and the
expert bodies found the petitioner unfit under those standards, the Court
concluded that the department’s decision was lawful and justified.
ANALYSIS:
In this judgment
delivered by Justice Sandeep Sharma of the High Court of Haryana on 07/11/2025,
the Court upheld the primacy of job-specific physical fitness standards over a
general disability certificate in public employment. The petitioner, despite possessing
a 50% locomotor disability certificate and meeting educational qualifications,
was denied appointment as a Pharmacist (Allopathy) under the PWD quota because
he failed to satisfy the mandatory physical requirements of “standing and
walking” as prescribed in the Government Notifications of 23.03.2012 and
26.09.2022. The Court gave significant weight to the consistent findings of
multiple medical boards and departmental committees, including evaluations at
PGIMER Chandigarh, which determined that the petitioner’s left hemiparesis and
associated visual impairment rendered him unsuitable for the role. This
decision reinforces that while disability certificates establish the extent of
impairment, they do not automatically guarantee suitability for a particular
post when specific functional benchmarks are statutorily prescribed.
The ruling strikes a
pragmatic balance between the protective intent of disability reservation laws
and the operational realities of technical healthcare positions. The Court
distinguished the Pharmacist role, which involves patient interaction,
emergency assistance, mobility across hospital premises, and handling of
medicines from more sedentary or intellectually oriented positions (such as
judicial roles) where greater accommodation is feasible. By declining to
interfere with expert medical assessments and noting that the petitioner
himself was informed that his appointment was subject to fitness verification,
the Court avoided setting a precedent that could compromise patient safety or
service efficiency. However, this approach may invite criticism from disability
rights advocates for potentially narrowing the scope of PWD reservations in
physically demanding jobs.
info@adhwaitha.com