WP4023.2025.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 4023 OF 2025

Shabana Rashid Pinjari.

Age : 41 years, Occ: Nil,

Residing at : 302, Al Sufiyan Flat,

Savera Hotel, Amber Tower,

Ahmedabad, Gujrat- 380055. … Petitioner.

Versus

Maharashtra Public Service Commission,

Through its Chairman,

having officer at – Trishul Gold Field,

Plot No. 34, Sector 11,

Opp. Sarovar Vihar, CBD Belapur,

Navi Mumbai 400 614. … Respondent.

****

Dr. Uday Warunjikar i/b. Mr. Siddhesh Pilankar, for the Petitioner.

Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni a/w. Mr. Siddharth Shitole, for Respondent-

MPSC.

****

CORAM :M.S. KARNIK AND

ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

DATE :8

th

APRIL, 2025

JUDGMENT (ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J)

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and by consent of the

Advocates representing the respective parties, petition is taken up for

final hearing.

Talwalkar 1

ARUNA

SANDEEP

TALWALKAR

Digitally signed

by ARUNA

SANDEEP

TALWALKAR

Date: 2025.04.09

20:51:33 +0530 2025:BHC-AS:16701-DB

::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 11:56:28 :::

WP4023.2025.odt

2. Petitioner, battling and surmounting debility against visual

impairment (100% blindness), has filed the present Petition invoking the

extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

Factual Matrix :

3. Respondent published an advertisement No. 01/2023 dated

20.01.2023, inviting online registration of applications from eligible

candidates for the Maharashtra Subordinate Group-B and Group-C

Services Combined Preliminary Examination-2023 (“said

advertisement”). Supplementary advertisement bearing Advertisement

No. 111/2023 was published on 13.10.2023

4. In response to the said advertisement, Petitioner being 100%

permanently visually impaired ( blind) , on 30.01.2023 applied for the

post of Clerk-Typist (Marathi – English)-2023 under the Person with

Disability category .

5. Said advertisement, required candidates to submit preferences

online for the appointing authority i.e. Administrative Department

(Pradhikaran Vibhag)”. On account of her disability, Petitioner took

assistance from a person at the internet cafe to fill the preference form.

While selecting the preference option, person from internet cafe assisting

Talwalkar 2 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 11:56:28 :::

WP4023.2025.odt

Petitioner, inadvertently selected the option of “no preference” in the

preference list for selecting the appointing authority. Petitioner was

oblivion of the said error. Petitioner successfully cleared the

preliminary as well as mains examination in one attempt with a total

score of 192.48.

6. Upon being informed of the error committed, in selecting the

option for the appointing authority, Petitioner immediately by her letter

dated 28.02.2025, brought the said error to the notice of the Respondent

and requested for indulgence to correct the said error by editing the said

option to give her choice of preference for the appointing authority.

Petitioner did not receive any response to the letter dated 28.02.2025, as

such Petitioner made another representation dated 03.03.2025 to the

Respondent. National Association for the Blind (NAB) an organization

working for the upliftment of individuals with visual impairment, made

a similar request to the Respondent to consider affording an opportunity

to the Petitioner to edit her preference for appointing authority.

7. Vide reply dated 06.03.2025, Respondent rejected the request of

the Petitioner. Ground for rejection was that the clause/s of the said

advertisement / examination scheme did not permit modifying /

changing the option in respect of the preference for appointing authority.

Talwalkar 3 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 11:56:28 :::

WP4023.2025.odt

8. Petitioner is thus before this Court seeking the following

substantial relief :

“a) Be pleased to call for records and proceedings of the

advertisement No 01/2023 and the supplementary advertisement

No. 111/2023 and the letter dated 6th March 2025 issued by the

respondent herein thereby rejecting the request of correction of

error in the preference form of the petitioner and after going

through the same and satisfying about its legality, validity and

propriety, be pleased to quash and set aside the letter dated 6th

March 2025 and further direct the respondent to provide one

opportunity to the petitioner to correct the error made in the

preference form as per the terms and conditions as this Hon'ble

High court may deem fit and proper;”

9. Respondent appeared through learned Advocate Mr. Ashutosh

Kulkarni and has opposed the petition.

SUBMISSIONS:

10. Dr. Uday Warunjikar, learned Advocate on behalf of the Petitioner

has advanced following arguments :

(a) Petitioner deserves an an opportunity to correct / edit

Talwalkar 4 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 11:56:28 :::

WP4023.2025.odt

the preference of appointing authority, considering her

disability.

(b) Error in excising the “no preference” of appointing

authority, was attributable to the disability of the Petitioner,

resulting in the Petitioner requiring assistance to fill the online

form, by taking assistance of the person at the internet cafe.

(c) By Press Release dated 21.02.2025 and 04.03.2025,

Respondent had extended the deadline for submitting the

“Appointing authorities Preferences” for the post of clerk-

typist under the Maharashtra Group-C Services Main

Examination-2023 (Clerk-Typist Cadre), upto 06.03.2025.

Request for correction / editing the preference of appointing

authority, made by the Petitioner was on 28.02.2025 and

03.03.2025, being within the extended timeline, Respondent

ought to have considered the request of the Petitioner.

(d) Petitioner being eligible and having successfully

cleared the preliminary and mains examination with score

192.48, the Petitioner ought not be denied of exercising her

preference of appointing authority, more so when the error was

attributable to the Petitioner’s disability.

Talwalkar 5 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 11:56:28 :::

WP4023.2025.odt

(e) Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the

case of Ms.

Shanta Digamber Sonawane v/s. Union of India &

Anr.

1

11. On the other hand, Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni, learned Advocate for

the Respondent, apart from advancing oral submissions has placed on

record his written notes of arguments. Shri Kulkarni submits as under :

(a) Neither the recruitment rules nor the examination

scheme makes a provision for a candidate to seek or enable the

Respondent to allow any modification in the preference of

appointing authority, having opted for the same. Reliance is

placed on the terms of the said advertisement, clause No. 2.2,

2.10 and 2.11 of the Examination Scheme.

(b) Respondent had rejected Petitioner’s application

dated 28.02.2025 and 03.03.2025, by letter dated 06.03.2025

pointing out the clauses prohibiting any change in the

preference for the appointing authority, subsequent to the

exercise of the preference option.

(c) Said advertisement for preliminary examination as

well as mains examination provide that the final results of the

1 (Civil Writ Petition No. 10813 of 2023)

Talwalkar 6 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 11:56:28 :::

WP4023.2025.odt

examination would be declared as per the Examination

Scheme published on the website of the Respondent. General

instructions to candidates published by the Respondent and

Clause 3(6) of the Declaration dated 26.02.2025 published on

website of the Respondent notified the candidates that after

the specified period, request for change or submission of

preference shall not be entertained. Said information was

available on the website of the Respondent, thus in public

domain .

(d) According to the Respondent, Clause 10.4.1(4) of the

said advertisement mentions that candidates held eligible for

mains examination are entitled to give preference from the

options which were given by them at the time of preliminary

examination. Petitioner had given one option at the time of

preliminary examination viz, Maharashtra Hindi, Sindhi,

Gurarathi Sahitya Academy as Appointing Authority.

However, at the time of mains examination, the Petitioner did

not select the said option and rather selected option “no

preference”. In such circumstances, the Respondent was

unable to accept the contention of the Petitioner that the same

was a mistake.

Talwalkar 7 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 11:56:28 :::

WP4023.2025.odt

(e) Decision of this Court in the case of Shanta Sonawane

(supra) was on different sets of facts as such not applicable to

the case in hand.

12. From the rival contentions of the parties, the question that falls for

consideration is whether the request of the Petitioner for correcting /

editing the “preference of appointing authority” can be afforded to the

Petitioner ?

POSITION OF LAW

13. Until 2016, the prevailing disability law in India was the Person

with Disability Act, 1995. India ratified the United Nations Convention

on the Rights of Person of disability and the Person with Disability Act,

1995 was replaced with Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016,

(RPwD Act) which law seeks to promote the inclusion of persons with

disability by expanding the legal definition of disability. RPwD Act

confers an obligation on the State to ensure that persons with disabilities

enjoy the right to equality, life with dignity and respect for his or her

integrity, equally with others, as also to ensure equal opportunity to

persons with disability.

14. Section 2(s) of RPwD Act defines a person with disability. Section

2(y) of RPwD Act defines ‘reasonable accommodation’. Sections 2(s)

Talwalkar 8 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 11:56:28 :::

WP4023.2025.odt

and 2(y) are transcribed herein below :

“2(s) “person with disability” means a person with long

term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory

impairment which, in interaction with barriers, hinders

his full and effective participation in society equally

with others;

2(y) “reasonable accommodation” means necessary and

appropriate modification and adjustments, without

imposing a disproportionate or undue burden in a

particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the

enjoyment or exercise of rights equally with others;”

15. Reference to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

respect of the matters pertaining to the rights of person with disability

would be useful.

(i)

Vikas Kumar v/s. Union Public Service Commission &

Ors.

2

was a case of denial of a scribe to the candidate having

disability in the form of dysgraphia (writer’s cramp), who was

aspirant in 2018 Civil Services Examination. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court clarified the meaning and scope of reasonable

accommodation. In paragraphs nos. 43 to 48 the Hon’ble Supreme

Court has observed as under :

“43 At the heart of this case lies the principle of

2 AIR 2001 SC 2447

Talwalkar 9 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 11:56:28 :::

WP4023.2025.odt

reasonable accommodation. Individual dignity

undergirds the RPwD Act, 2016 . Intrinsic to its

realization is recognizing the worth of every person as

an equal member of society. Respect for the dignity of

others and fostering conditions in which every

individual can evolve according to their capacities are

key elements of a legal order which protects, respects

and facilitates individual autonomy. In seeking to

project these values as inalienable rights of the

disabled, the RPwD Act, 2016 travels beyond being

merely a charter of non-discrimination. It travels

beyond imposing restraints on discrimination against

the disabled. The law does this by imposing a positive

obligation on the State to secure the realization of

rights. It does so by mandating that the State must

create conditions in which the barriers posed by

disability can be overcome. The creation of an

appropriate environment in which the disabled can

pursue the full range of entitlements which are

encompassed within human liberty is enforceable at

law. In its emphasis on substantive equality, the

enactment of the legislation is a watershed event in

providing a legal foundation for equality of opportunity

to the disabled.

44 As a social construct, disability encompasses

features broader and more comprehensive than a

medical condition. The RPwD Act, 2016 recognizes

that disability results in inequality of access to a range

of public and private entitlements. The handicaps

which the disabled encounter emerge out of disability’s

engagement with the barriers created by prejudice,

discrimination and societal indifference. Operating as

restraining factors, these barriers have origins which

can be traced to physical, social, economic and

psychological conditions in society. Operating on the

Talwalkar 10 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 11:56:28 :::

WP4023.2025.odt

pre-existing restraints posed by disability, these

barriers to development produce outcomes in which the

disabled bear an unequal share of societal burdens. The

legislation has recognized that remedies for the barriers

encountered by the disabled are to be found in the

social environment in which they live, work and co-

habit with others. The barriers encountered by every

disabled person can be remedied by recognizing

comprehensive rights as inhering in them; rights which

impose duties and obligations on others.

45 The principle of reasonable accommodation

acknowledges that if disability as a social construct has

to be remedied, conditions have to be affirmatively

created for facilitating the development of the disabled.

Reasonable accommodation is founded in the norm of

inclusion. Exclusion results in the negation of

individual dignity and worth or they can choose the

route of reasonable accommodation, where each

individuals’ dignity and worth is respected. Under this

route, the “powerful and the majority adapt their own

rules and practices, within the limits of reason and

short of undue hardship, to permit realization of these

ends.”

46 In the specific context of disability, the

principle of reasonable accommodation postulates that

the conditions which exclude the disabled from full and

effective participation as equal members of society

have to give way to an accommodative society which

accepts difference, respects their needs and facilitates

the creation of an environment in which the societal

barriers to disability are progressively answered.

Accommodation implies a positive obligation to create

conditions conducive to the growth and fulfilment of

the disabled in every aspect of their existence –

Talwalkar 11 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 11:56:28 :::

WP4023.2025.odt

whether as students, members of the workplace,

participants in governance or, on a personal plane, in

realizing the fulfilling privacies of family life. The

accommodation which the law mandates is

‘reasonable’ because it has to be tailored to the

requirements of each condition of disability. The

expectations which every disabled person has are

unique to the nature of the disability and the character

of the impediments which are encountered as its

consequence.

47 For instance, for a visually impaired person,

the reasonable accommodation she requires might

consist of screen magnification software or a screen

reader [which can speak out the content on a computer

screen in a mechanical voice]. It might also consist of

content being made available in Braille and a sighted

assistant. In the same way, for someone with a hearing

impairment, reasonable accommodation could consist

of speech-to-text converters, access to sign language

interpreters, sound amplification systems, rooms in

which echo is eliminated and lip-reading is possible.

Similarly, for a person with dyslexia, reasonable

accommodation could consist of access to computer

programmes suited to meet their needs and

compensatory time.

48 Failure to meet the individual needs of every

disabled person will breach the norm of reasonable

accommodation. Flexibility in answering individual

needs and requirements is essential to reasonable

accommodation. The principle contains an aspiration to

meet the needs of the class of persons facing a

particular disability. Going beyond the needs of the

class, the specific requirement of individuals who

belong to the class must also be accommodated. The

Talwalkar 12 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 11:56:28 :::

WP4023.2025.odt

principle of reasonable accommodation must also

account for the fact that disability based discrimination

is intersectional in nature. The intersectional features

arise in particular contexts due to the presence of

multiple disabilities and multiple consequences arising

from disability. Disability therefore cannot be truly

understood by regarding it as unidimensional.

Reasonable accommodation requires the policy makers

to comprehend disability in all its dimensions and to

design measures which are proportionate to needs,

inclusive in their reach and respecting of differences

and aspirations. Reasonable accommodation cannot be

construed in a way that denies to each disabled person

the customization she seeks. Even if she is in a class of

her own, her needs must be met.24 While assessing the

reasonableness of an accommodation, regard must also

be had to the benefit that the accommodation can have,

not just for the disabled person concerned, but also for

other disabled people similarly placed in future.”

(ii)

Patan Jamal Vali v/s. State of Andhra Pradesh

3 , was a case

of a woman with complete visual impairment, who was sought to

be discredited by an accused alleged of committing rape on her, on

the ground that her disability prevented her from being an eye

witness. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed the need for courts

to be cognizant of the biases the stigma faced by person with

disability.

(iii)

Avani Prakash v/s. National Testing Agency(NTA) & Ors.

4

3 AIR2021 SC2190

4 (2023) 2 SCC286

Talwalkar 13 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 11:56:28 :::

WP4023.2025.odt

was a case of a candidate with writer’s cram being denied the one

hour compensatory time provided to person with disability while

appearing for NEET-UGC examination. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court made reference to “Tragedy of errors” that had taken place in

the said case which denied candidates’ rights to reasonable

accommodation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was at a pains to

observe that the said case highlighted the lack of awareness and did

not treat the candidate with disabilities, with due sensitivity.

(iv)

Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal & Anr. v.s. Union of India

5

. was

a case of an employee from the CRPF who had acquired a serious

mental illness during service, was assessed by the Government

Hospital and certified as of having a permanent disability, based on

which he was declared unfit for duty. The said decision recognises

that disability itself is an evolving concept and a one-size-fits-all

approach cannot be used to identify disability.

(v)

Om Rathod v/s. Director General of Health Services and

Ors.

6

was a case where the candidate had a lower limb Mayopathy

exceeding 80%, despite having scored 80% and having achieved a

rank in NEET-UG was being denied MBBS programe after a

5 (2023) 2 SCC 209

6 2024 SCC Online SC 3130

Talwalkar 14 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 11:56:28 :::

WP4023.2025.odt

medical assessment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that an

approach which focuses more on disability than ability amounts to

a denial of right to reasonable accommodation and violate Articles

14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

(vi) In the case of

Rajive Raturi v/s. Union of India & Ors.

7

, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the rights of a person with

disabilities to accessible spaces under both Constitution and the

RPwD Act.

ANALYSIS

16. Petitioner being visually impaired (100% blindness), she having

applied for the post of Clerk -Typist under the Person with Benchmark

Disability and she having cleared the preliminary as well as mains

examination are facts which are not in dispute. Department of

Empowerment of Person with Disability, Ministry of Social Justice and

Empowerment, Government of India has issued Disability Certificate

dated 18.03.2023, certifying the Petitioner being a case of

blindness(100%).

17. Petitioner and Respondent having laid emphasis on the letter dated

06.03.2025 and the press-release dated 21.02.2025 and 04.03.2025,

contents of the said documents are extracted herein below :

7 2024 SCC Online SC 3217

Talwalkar 15 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 11:56:28 :::

WP4023.2025.odt

a)Letter dated 06.03.2025 issued by the Respondent :

“Number: 1442/Group-C Joint C.S./2023/24.

Date: 06 March, 2025

To.

Mrs. Shabana Rashid Pinjari

(E-mail ID: shabanapinjari661@gmail.com)

Subject: Maharashtra Group-C Services Main

Examination-2023 (Clerk-Typist Cadre)

Ref: Your representation dated 27 February, 2025

Madam,

With reference to the above representation, you

have mentioned that while submitting the appointing

authority preferences for the Clerk-Typist cadre, you

mistakenly selected the option 'No Preference.' You

have requested an opportunity to newly submit a

preference order for four appointing authority of�ces

mentioned in your representation. Accordingly, you

are hereby informed as follows.

2. The following has been speci�ed in the

examination scheme for this cadre:

(i) Para 2.3. While providing options for the Clerk-

Typist cadre, candidates will be given the choice to

apply for one or more of�ces under the appointing

authorities, and the further recruitment process will

be conducted based on these options.

(ii) Para 2.10 The options provided by the

candidates for various cadres and/or appointing

authorities for the Clerk-Typist cadre at the time of

submitting the application for the Combined

Preliminary Examination will be considered �nal, and

further recruitment will be conducted accordingly.

(iii) Para 2.11 Any request for modi�cation of the

options given for various cadres and/or appointing

authorities for the Clerk-Typist cadre in the

Talwalkar 16 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 11:56:28 :::

WP4023.2025.odt

application for the Combined Preliminary

Examination will not be entertained under any

circumstances.

3. The following has been mentioned in para 10.4.1

(4) of the advertisement for the main examination:

Candidates who qualify for the main examination

from the preliminary examination will be allowed to

submit a preference order only for the

cadre/appointing authority options they had selected

in their preliminary examination application.

4. While submitting your preliminary examination

application, you had selected only one appointing

authority of�ce, namely Maharashtra Hindi, Sindhi,

and Gujarati Literature Academy, under the Clerk-

Typist cadre. While submitting the preference order

for this cadre, you were required to either provide a

preference order for the appointing authority of�ce or

select the 'No Preference' option. It appears that you

selected the 'No Preference' option.

5. Regarding the submission of appointing authority-

wise preferences in this cadre, the following has been

mentioned in para 3 (6) of the press release published

on the Commission's website on 21 February, 2025:

"Under no circumstances will requests for submission

or modi�cation of appointing authority-wise

preference orders be accepted after the prescribed

period."

6. Considering all the above provisions, your request

made through the referenced representation cannot

be accepted.”

b)Press-release dated 21.02.2025:

Number: 1442/Group-C Joint Li. Typ/2023/24

Date: 21 February, 2025

-: PRESS RELEASE :-

Talwalkar 17 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 11:56:28 :::

WP4023.2025.odt

Subject: Submission of preference order for

appointing authority-wise selection in Maharashtra

Group-C Services Main Examination-2023, 'Clerk-

Typist' cadre

Ref: Advertisement Number 001/2023 and

111/2023

The general merit list for the 'Clerk-Typist'

cadre in the Maharashtra Group-C Services Main

Examination-2023 has been published on the

Commission's website on 11 February, 2025.

2. To submit the preference order (Preference

Number) for the noti�ed appointing authorities'

of�ces of this cadre, a web link titled 'Appointing

Authority Preferences' has been provided under the

'ONLINE FACILITIES' menu on the Commission's

website https://mpsc.gov.in. This web link will

remain active from 12:00 PM on 24 February, 2025,

to 11:59 PM on 2 March, 2025.

3. Based on the preference orders received in

the prescribed manner from candidates, the

following process will be carried out regarding the

�nal result/recommendations:

(1) Candidates may submit their preference

order only for the appointing authorities they

selected while submitting the preliminary

examination application form.

(2) Candidates must select a preference order

(Preference Number) or the 'No Preference' option

for the appointing authorities available via the web

link.

(3) Candidates should submit their preference

order only for the posts they are interested in. For

posts they are not interested in, they should select

the 'No Preference' option.

(4) After submitting the preference order,

candidates can save a copy by selecting the

'Download PDF' option.

(5) Only those appointing authorities for which

candidates have submitted preferences online will

be considered.

Talwalkar 18 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 11:56:28 :::

WP4023.2025.odt

(6) Under no circumstances will requests to

submit or change preference orders be accepted

after the speci�ed period.

4. In case of any technical dif�culties while

submitting appointing authority preferences,

candidates may contact the Commission at the toll-

free numbers 1800-1234-275 or 7303821822, or

via email at support-online@mpsc.gov.in within the

prescribed period.

Deputy Secretary (Post-Examination Non-Gazetted)

Maharashtra Public Service Commission

Place - Navi Mumbai.

(c)Press-release dated 04.03.2025 :

Reference No.: MIS-0120/C.R.09/2020/IT

Date: 4 March, 2025

-: PRESS RELEASE :-

Subject: Extension of the deadline for submitting

preference order for the post of

'Clerk-Typist' under Maharashtra Group-C

Services Main Examination-2023

Ref: (1) Advertisement No. 111/2023

(2) Commission's press release dated 21

February 2025

The deadline for submitting the preference

order (Preference Number) for the post of 'Clerk-

Typist' under the Maharashtra Group-C Services

Main Examination 2023 has been extended until 6

March 2025. The speci�ed web link will be active

from 12:00 PM on 4 March 2025 to 11:59 PM on 6

March 2025.

2. The procedure and other aspects related to

submitting t2 The deadline for submitting the

preference order (Preference Number) for the post of

'Clerk-Typist' under the Maharashtra Group-C

Services Main Examination 2023 has been extended

until 6 March 2025. The speci�ed web link will be

active from 12:00 PM on 4 March 2025 to 11:59 PM

on 6 March 2025.

Talwalkar 19 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 11:56:28 :::

WP4023.2025.odt

3. In case of any technical dif�culties while

submitting the preference order, the concerned

authorities may contact the Commission's toll-free

numbers 1800-1234-275 or 7303821822, or reach

out via email at support-online@mpsc.gov.in within

the stipulated period.

Location - Navi Mumbai

Deputy Secretary,

Information Technology

Maharashtra Public Service

Commission

18. Petitioner has put forth a specific case of having taken assistance

from a person at the Internet cafe to fill the preference form and that

opting for “no preference” of appointing authority was an inadvertent

mistake on the part of the said person.

Respondent has opposed the petition on the ground that the

Petitioner having once exercised the option “no preference for

appointing authority”, the Petitioner, is bound by the same. Stand of the

Respondent as disclosed in the letter dated 06.03.2025 is that they are

bound by the clause/s of advertisement/ Examination scheme and cannot

remedy the situation.

19. Respondent, rely on the terms of the said advertisement and

clause nos 2.2., 2.10 and 2.11 in the Examination Scheme, with rigidness

to contend that the same prohibits any change in the specified

preference. It is further their contention that the candidates were notified

Talwalkar 20 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 11:56:28 :::

WP4023.2025.odt

by issuance of general instructions, as such, request for change or

submission of preference beyond specified period would not be

entertained. Thus, according to the Respondent the error stemming form

Petitioner’s disability, cannot be remedied. This approach of the

Respondent shows the insensitivity towards persons with disabilities.

20. The situation is not such that the error cannot be rectified or that

prejudice would be caused to anyone by rectifying the error. Respondent

is expected to look at the situation with sensitivity and flexibility. A

technical consideration can never outweigh any decision which furthers

the laudable object in enacting the RPwD Act. It is in such cases the

provisions of the RPwD Act can be made meaningful.

21. Candidates being notified of the prohibition clause/s in the

advertisement / website, need to be viewed differently to individual with

disabilities and more particularly individuals with visually impairment,

depending in the facts and circumstances of each case. Respondent has

flawed in applying the concept of

Defensive awareness to the Petitioner.

On the contrary, Respondent was expected to afford an opportunity to the

Petitioner to correct the mistake in the preference of appointing

authority, for more than one reason, viz.

firstly, it is not the case of the

Respondent that the mistake by the Petitioner was deliberate and

secondly the request for correction made by the Petitioner was

Talwalkar 21 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 11:56:28 :::

WP4023.2025.odt

within the extended time limit for submitting the preference order. Such

a course would have advanced the principle of “reasonable

accommodation” envisaged in the RPwD Act. Instead, the Respondent

has taken a pedantic stand, which according to us is harsh and not in

consonance with the objective of RPwD Act.

22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court has time an

again observed that the legislation for disabled should not merely remain

in the statute book, rather, the spirit behind the legislation must be

applied by all authorities in its practical application. RPwD Act mandates

ensuring equal opportunities for people with disabilities by making

adjustments to meet their specific needs. In the present case the

Respondent missed an opportunity to further the cause of RPwD Act.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 81 in the case of

Vikas Kumar

(supra)

has observed as under :

“A generation of disabled people in India which regards

as its birthright access to the full panoply of

constitutional entitlements, robust statutory rights geared

to meet their unique needs and conducive societal

conditions needed for them to flourish and to truly

become co-equal participants in all facets of life.”

23. Records of the case bears out that the Respondents had

themselves extended the time limit fixed for submitting the preference

order for notified appointing authorities by press-release dated

Talwalkar 22 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 11:56:28 :::

WP4023.2025.odt

21.02.2025 and 04.03.2025. By the said Press-release the time limit to

submit the preference order was extended till 06.03.2025. Petitioner by

her request letter dated 28.02.2025 and 03.03.2025 had made a request to

the Respondent to correct/modify the preference order. The Respondent

at this point of time ought to have come out of the

proscenium arch, to

advance the concept of reasonable accommodation to the Petitioner by

affording an opportunity to correct/modify the option of preference for

selecting the appointing authorities. The deadline for submitting the said

preference order having not expired, the Respondent would have been

well within their right to consider affording an opportunity to the

Petitioner.

24. The Petitioner has cleared preliminary examination as well as

mains with a score of 192.48. Preference in the appointing authority,

would give a candidate of being comfortable in the place of workplace,

facilities available for persons with disabilities, proximity to the

residence of such candidate, etc. Giving an opportunity to the Petitioner

to edit/correct the preference option, will subserve and advance the

concept of “reasonable accommodation” guaranteed to a person with

disability under the RPwD Act.

25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Avani Prakash (supra)

has observed that “ It is no answer for an authority bound by the dicta of

Talwalkar 23 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 11:56:28 :::

WP4023.2025.odt

law and the Constitution, to throw up its hands in despair, instead of

attempting to remedy the injustice which is caused to a student. A judge

cannot ignore that behind the statistics a human face, reflecting the

aspirations, joy and tears of a student and her family.”

26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Justice Sunanda

Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India and anr. has observed , as under:

“9. Be that as it may, the beneficial

provisions of the 1995 Act cannot be

allowed to remain only on paper for years

and thereby defeating the very purpose of

such law and legislative policy. The Union,

States, Union Territories and all those upon

whom obligation has been cast under the

1995 Act have to effectively implement it.

As a matter of fact, the role of the

governments in the matter such as this has to

be proactive. In the matters of providing

relief to those who are differently abled, the

approach and attitude of the executive must

be liberal and relief-oriented and not

obstructive or lethargic. A little concern for

this class who are differently abled can do

wonders in their life and help them stand on

their own and not remain on mercy of

others. A welfare State, that India is, must

accord its best and special attention to a

section of our society which comprises of

differently abled citizens. This is true

equality and effective conferment of equal

opportunity.

Talwalkar 24 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 11:56:28 :::

WP4023.2025.odt

27. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in identical facts in the case of

Mrs. Shanta Digambar Sonawane (supra) which was a case of a

candidate who was 100% visually impaired, frowned upon the

insensitivity shown by authorities. In paragraph-14 this Court has

observed as under :

“14. The concept of fairness in dealing with

person with disabilities is not only of treating

them equal with others but of an affirmative

action. The Supreme Court observed in

Jeeja

Ghosh and Another Versus Union of India and

Others

8

that the key aspect of fairness is

understanding that different individuals have

varying needs, particularly those with disabilities.

The Supreme Court, in the case of

Vikash Kumar

Versus Union Public Service Commission and

Others

9

, elaborated the principle of Reasonable

Accommodation, which entails providing

additional support and facilities to persons with

disabilities. Simply stating that discrimination

against persons with disabilities is prohibited is

insufficient. Additional support is required to

mitigate the impact of disabilities. The principle

of Reasonable Accommodation in Section 3 of

the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

(the Act of 2016) mandates both supplementary

support to individuals with disabilities and

facilitating their complete integration into society.

This principle rises above the mere prohibition of

discrimination. It means the proactive creation of

conditions conducive to the person with

8 (2016) 7SCC 761

9 (2021) 5 SCC 370

Talwalkar 25 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 11:56:28 :::

WP4023.2025.odt

disabilities. Reasonable Accommodation implies

that the needs of individuals with disabilities

must be acknowledged and remedied to a

reasonable extent, respecting their differences and

facilitating their full participation in all facets of

life. The accommodations provided by law must

be "reasonable" and tailored to the specific needs

of each individual. Failing to meet the unique

requirements of individuals with disabilities

would contravene the principle of reasonable

accommodation.”

28. In view of the above. we are of the opinion in the facts and

circumstances of the present case, permitting the Petitioner to

edit/modify the preference option would be in consonance with the intent

and object of RPwD Act.

29. The Petition is therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

The impugned letter dated 6

th

March, 2025 is quashed and set aside. The

Respondent is directed to provide an opportunity to the Petitioner to

edit/modify the option in the preference form.

30. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. There shall be no order

as to cost.

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (M.S. KARNIK, J)

Talwalkar 26 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 11:56:28 :::