As per case facts, petitioners with benchmark disabilities applied for various Group-C and Group-D government posts advertised by the JRBT. Despite scoring higher marks, they were not selected, while other ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
TRHC010018022024 2026:THC:549 2026:THC:549
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
A G A R T A L A
WP(C) No.694 of 2024
Sri Joyjit Chowdhury,
S/O Lt. Bidhu Bhushan Chowdhury, R/O Matabari, P.O. Matabari, P.S. R.K.
Pur, Dist. Gomati, PIN 799013, Aged about 45 years
….Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Tripura,
Represented by it’s Principal Secretary, Department of Labour, Govt.
of Tripura, P.O. Secretariat, P.S. New Capital Complex, Dist. West
Tripura, PIN 799010.
2. The Director,
Directorate of Employment Services and Manpower Planning, Govt. of
Tripura, P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, Dist. West Tripura, PIN
799001.
3. The Joint Recruitment Board of Tripura,
Represented by it’s Member Secretary, Directorate of Employment
Services and Manpower Planning, Govt. of Tripura, P.O. Agartala,
P.S. West Agartala, Dist. West Tripura, PIN 799001.
4. The Controller,
Joint Recruitment Board of Tripura, Directorate of Employment Services
and Manpower Planning, Govt. of Tripura, P.O. Agartala, P.S. West
Agartala, Dist. West Tripura, PIN 799001.
5. Sri Tapan Biswas,
S/O Sachindra Chandra Biswas.
6. Sri Bishnu Pada Das,
S/O Kripesh Chandra Das.
7. Smt. Lovely Bardhan,
D/O Chandan Bardhan.
8. Sri Amarendra Riang,
S/O Lt. Khagendra Riang.
9. Sri Bikash Riang,
S/O Saduram Riang.
10. Sri Baku Mog,
S/O Ruio Mog.
11. Sri Prasenjit Debbarma,
S/O Lt. Bishuram Debbarma.
12. Smt. Sapi Dabbarma,
D/O Mohan Singh Debbarma.
Notice upon Respondent No.5 -12 to be served through the
Respondent No. 3.
….Respondent(s)
Page 2 of 20
WP(C)No.695 of 2024
Sri Joyjit Chowdhury,
S/O Lt. Bidhu Bhushan Chowdhury, R/O Matabari, P.O. Matabari, P.S. R.K.
Pur, Dist. Gomati, PIN 799013, Aged about 45 years.
….Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Tripura,
Represented by it’s Principal Secretary, Department of Labour, Govt. of
Tripura, P.O. Secretariat, P.S. New Capital Complex, Dist West
Tripura, PIN 799010.
2. The Director,
Directorate of Employment Services and Manpower Planning, Govt. of
Tripura, P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, Dist. West Tripura, PIN
799001.
3. The Joint Recruitment Board of Tripura,
Represented by it’s Member Secretary, Directorate of Employment
Services and Manpower Planning, Govt. of Tripura, P.O. Agartala, P.S.
West Agartala, Dist. West Tripura, PIN 799001.
4. The Controller,
Joint Recruitment Board of Tripura, Directorate of Employment Services
and Manpower Planning, Govt. of Tripura, P.O. Agartala, P.S. West
Agartala, Dist. West Tripura, PIN 799001.
….Respondent(s)
WP(C)No.784 of 2024
1. Sri Ranjit Debnath,
S/O Lt. Sarat Chandra Debnath, R/O Ichachara, P.O Ichachara, P.S
Kakraban, Dist Gomati, PIN 799105, Aged about 48 years approx.
2. Sri Santi Prasad Das,
S/O Lt. Rama Prasad Das, R/O Durjoynagar, Airport Road, Near
Nursing Institute, P.O. Durjoynagar, P.S. New Capital Complex, Dist.
West Tripura, PIN 799009, Aged about 44 years approx.
….Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Tripura,
Represented by it’s Principal Secretary, Department of Labour, Govt.
of Tripura, P.O. Secretariat, P.S. New Capital Complex, Dist West
Tripura, PIN 799010.
2. The Director,
Directorate of Employment Services and Manpower Planning, Govt. of
Tripura, P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, Dist. West Tripura, PIN
799001.
3. Joint Recruitment Board of Tripura,
Represented by it’s Member Secretary, Govt. of Tripura, P.O. Agartala,
P.S. West Agartala, Dist. West Tripura, PIN 799001.
Page 3 of 20
4. The Controller,
Joint Recruitment Board of Tripura, Govt. of Tripura, P.O. Agartala,
P.S. West Agartala, Dist. West Tripura, PIN 799001.
5. Sri Badal Tripura,
S/O Jashu Mohan Tripura.
6. Smt. Tuhina Kalai,
D/O Sri Gurudhan Kalai.
7. Sri Durjadhan Debbarma,
S/O Sri Biswa Kumar Debbarma.
8. Sri Babu Mog,
S/O Lt. Chaila Mog.
9. Smt. Happy Jamatia,
D/O Hemanta Kumar Jamatia.
10. Smt. Asha Chakma,
D/O Ananda Chakma.
11. Sri Tapas Tripura,
S/O Topal Tripura.
Notice upon the Respondents No.5 to 11 to be served through the
Respondent No. 3.
….Respondent(s)
WP(C)No.785 of 2024
Sri Rajesh Chakraborty,
S/O Sri Asish Chakraborty, R/O Badarmukam, P.O. & P.S. R.K. Pur, Dist.
Gomati Tripura, PIN 799120, Aged about 39 years.
….Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Tripura,
Represented by it’s Principal Secretary, Department of Labour, Govt. of
Tripura, P.O. Secretariat, P.S. New Capital Complex, Dist. West
Tripura, PIN 799010.
2. The Director,
Directorate of Employment Services and Manpower Planning, Govt. of
Tripura, P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, Dist. West Tripura, PIN
799001.
3. Joint Recruitment Board of Tripura,
Represented by it’s Member Secretary, Govt. of Tripura, P.O. Agartala,
P.S. West Agartala, Dist. West Tripura, PIN 799001.
4. The Controller,
Joint Recruitment Board of Tripura, Govt. of Tripura, P.O. Agartala,
P.S. West Agartala, Dist. West Tripura, PIN 799001.
5. Sri Baku Mog,
S/O Ruio Mog.
6. Sri Prasenjit Debbarma,
S/O Lt. Bishuram Debbarma.
Page 4 of 20
7. Smt. Sapi Debbarma,
D/O Mohan Singh Debbarma.
Notice upon Respondents No. 5 to 7 to be served through the
Respondent No. 3.
….Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arijit Bhaumik, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Debbarma, Addl. G.A.
Mr. D. Sarma, Addl. G.A.
Date of hearing : 24
th
February, 2026.
Date of delivery of
Judgment & Order : 30
th
April, 2026.
Whether fit for reporting :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT & ORDER
Since common issues are involved in all the writ petitions, they
were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
[2] In WP(C) 694 of 2024, the JRBT issued an advertisement for
filling up 2500 posts of Multi Tasking Staff, Group-D (category non-technical)
in various departments of the Government of Tripura, vide advertisement
No.2/2020, dated 03.12.2020 (Annexure 1 to WP(C) No.694 of 2024 which is
being treated to be the lead case). In the said advertisement, it was mentioned
that the State Government policy on reservation shall be followed.
[3] The JRBT also later on issued another advertisement bearing No.
Nil, dated 12.02.2021 [Annexure-1 to WP(C) No.695 of 2024] for filling up
1500 posts of LDC, 22 posts of Agriculture Assistant (except TAFS Grade-III),
443 posts of Agriculture Assistant (TAFS Grade-III), 236 posts of Junior
Operator (Pump) and 209 posts of Junior Multi Tasking Operator (Un-
common), in total 2410 nos. of posts. In that advertisement also, it was also
mentioned that reservation of the post would be as per the reservation roster
maintained by the concerned departments and as per the State Government
reservation policy and the same would be notified later.
YES NO
√
Page 5 of 20
[4] There is no dispute between the parties that in both the cases 4%
of total vacancies would be kept reserved for the persons with benchmark
disabilities under the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
2016 (For short, the RPwD Act).
[5] The petitioner of WP(C) 694 of 2024 and WP(C) 695 of 2024, is
the same person, namely, Joyjit Chowdhury. He applied for the post of Multi
Tasking Staff (Group-D), LDC, Agriculture Assistant (except TAFS Grade-III),
Agriculture Assistant (TAFS Grade-III). According to him, he is suffering from
benchmark disability under category of low vision and visual impairment as per
clause (a) of Section 34 of the Act, 2016. He has asserted that he qualified in
both the written examinations and thereafter appeared in interview and against
the post of Multi Tasking Staff, he scored total 49.738 marks, which was the
aggregate of both the results of written as well as of viva voce. Against the
post of LDC and other Group-C posts as mentioned above, he similarly scored
86 marks. But while the JRBT issued the final selection list under the
notification dated 07.09.2024 (Annexure 3 to the lead case) regarding filling up
of the post of Multi Tasking Staff, one Tapan Biswas, respondent No.5 who is
an SC (PH) category of candidate having similar disability under Clause (a)
was recommended for selection though he scored total 49.682 marks which is
lesser than the marks scored by him. Similarly, another Bishnu Pada Das,
respondent No.6 who is SC (PH) category candidate and is having similar
nature of disability, was recommended for selection despite having lesser
marks. Likewise, one Smt. Lovely Bardhan, respondent No.7 shown as SC
(PH) category, Amarendra Reang, respondent No.8 shown as S T (PH)
category and Bikash Reang, respondent No.9 shown as ST(PH) category
having similar disability were also likewise recommended though they also
scored lesser marks. There are also some other persons in the list similar to
them who are arrayed as private respondents herein.
[6] In WP(C) No.695 of 2024 for filling up of Group-C posts as
indicated earlier, the JRBT published the result of final selection vide
notification dated 13.09.2023 [Annexure-3 to WP(C) 695 of 2024] and
according to the petitioner, the last candidate who was selected from PH
reserved category with such benchmark disability under Clause (a),scored
total 87 marks which is higher than the marks scored by the petitioner but his
Page 6 of 20
grievance is that after filling up of those posts, even further 7 posts are lying
vacant under blindness and low vision category, but still he has not been
selected.
[7] In case No. WP(C) 784 of 2024, the petitioner no.1, namely, Sri
Ranjit Debnath participated in the selection process as involved in WP(C) 694
of 2024 regarding filling up of the post of Multi Tasking Staff (Group-D) and he
scored 50.529 marks and petitioner No.2, namely, Sri Santi Prasad Das
scored total 40.258 marks respectively. Both of them fall within the category of
locomotor disability. It is their case that the last person appointed in the said
category scored 42.5707 marks, and therefore, the petitioner No.1 was
similarly deprived of from getting selection despite having higher marks.
However, it appears that petitioner No.2 scored lesser marks than the last
selected candidate.
[8] In WP(C) 785 of 2024, the petitioner also participated in the said
selection process for selection against the post of Multi Tasking Staff (Group-
D) in PH category of low vision/blindness under Clause (a) and he scored
37.109 marks and the last recommended candidate in the said category
scored 33.7102 marks.
[9] Mr. A. Bhaumik, learned counsel for the petitioners refers to an
Office Memo. dated 09.01.2019, issued by the Social Welfare and Social
Education Department (Annexure A to the rejoinder affidavit submitted in the
lead case) and submits that as per clause 9.1 and 9.2 of said memorandum
any persons with benchmark disability are required to be accommodated in
horizontal reservation which cut across the vertical reservation and as per said
instructions, the persons selected against the quota for reservation with
benchmark disability are required to be placed against the appropriate
category viz. SC/ST/UR in the roster meant for reservation of SCs and STs,
depending upon the category to which they belong.
[10] Mr. Bhaumik, learned counsel also draws attention of this Court to
clause No. 12 of said Memo. which further elaborates the procedure of making
the final merit list in this regard. According to learned counsel, JRBT has
erroneously treated such reservation under the RPwD Act, 2016 as vertical
reservation, and therefore, wrongly selected some persons under said
Page 7 of 20
categories despite, they scored lesser marks than the petitioners, except
petitioner No.2 of WP(C) No.784 of 2024, and ultimately, deprived them from
their genuine claim of getting selected.
[11] To support his contention, Mr. Bhaumik, learned counsel relies on
a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney and
others vs. Union of India and others; 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, at Paragraph No.812, observed as under:
“812. We are also of the opinion that this rule of 50% applies
only to reservations in favour of backward classes made
under Article 16(4). A little clarification is in order at this juncture: all
reservations are not of the same nature. There are two types of
reservations, which may, for the sake of convenience, be referred to
as 'vertical reservations' and 'horizontal reservations'. The
reservations in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
other backward classes [under Article 16(4)] may be called vertical
reservations whereas reservations in favour of physically
handicapped [under Clause (1) of Article 16] can be referred to as
horizontal reservations. Horizontal reservations cut across the
vertical reservations-what is called interlocking reservations. To be
more precise, suppose 3% of the vacancies are reserved in favour
of physically handicapped persons; this would be a reservation
relatable to clause (1) of Article 16. The persons selected against
this quota will be placed in the appropriate category; if he belongs
to SC category he will be placed in that quota by making necessary
adjustments; similarly, if he belongs to open competition (OC)
category, he will be placed in that category by making necessary
adjustments. Even after providing for these horizontal reservations,
the percentage of reservations in favour of backward class of
citizens remains - and should remain - the same. This is how these
reservations are worked out in several States and there is no reason
not to continue that procedure.”
[12] Learned counsel further relies on Rajesh Kumar Daria vs.
Rajasthan Public Service Commission and others; (2007) 8 SCC 785,
wherein at paragraph No.8, the manner of accommodating the horizontal
reservation into vertical reservation was explained by the Apex Court, in the
following manner:
“8. We may also refer to two related aspects before considering the
facts of this case. The first is about the description of horizontal
reservation. For example, if there are 200 vacancies and 15% is the
vertical reservation for SC and 30% is the horizontal reservation for
women, the proper description of the number of posts reserved for
SC, should be: “For SC: 30 posts, of which 9 posts are for women.”
We find that many a time this is wrongly described thus: “For SC: 21
posts for men and 9 posts for women, in all 30 posts.” Obviously,
there is, and there can be, no reservation category of “male” or
“men”.”
Page 8 of 20
[13] In the case of Rekha Sharma vs. Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur and another; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2109 at paragraph No.13 it was
also similarly observed that in view of the clarification made in Indra Sawhney
(supra) that the reservation for persons with disability has been treated as
horizontal reservation i.e. reservation under Clause (1) of Article 16 and not
the vertical reservation i.e. the reservation under Clause (4) of Article 16 of the
Constitution. The concept of compartmentalized horizontal reservation and
overall horizontal reservation are also discussed therein. The relevant
paragraph Nos.13 and 14 are relevantly extracted hereunder:
“13. Thus, in view of the said clarification made in Indra Sawhney,
there remains no doubt that the reservation for persons with
disabilities would be relatable to Clause (1) of Article 16 and the
persons selected against this quota will be placed in appropriate
category i.e. if he/she belongs to Scheduled Category, he/she will be
placed in that category by making necessary adjustments, and if
he/she belongs to open category, necessary adjustments will be
made in the open category.
14. The concept of Overall Reservations and Compartmentalised
Reservations is also aptly explained by this Court in Anil Kumar
Gupta v State of U.P., (1995) 5 SCC 173. It has been observed
therein that where the seats reserved for the Horizontal
Reservations are proportionately divided amongst the Vertical
(Social) Reservations and are not intertransferable, it would be a
case of Compartmentalised Reservations, whereas in the Overall
Reservation, while allocating the special reservation candidates to
their respective social reservation category, the Overall Reservation
in favour of special reservation categories has to be honoured.
Meaning thereby the special reservations cannot be proportionately
divided among the Vertical (Social) reservation categories, and the
candidates eligible for special reservation categories have to be
provided overall seats reserved for them, either by adjusting them
against any of the Social/Vertical reservations or otherwise, and
thus they are intertransferable.”
[14] In the case of Tishan Jangid vs. High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan and another; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4826 as relied on by Mr.
Bhaumik, learned counsel, it appears that at paragraph No.7 reference was
made to both Rekha Sharma (supra) and Indra Sawhney (supra) to the
effect that reservation for the physically challenged category are horizontal in
nature in the sense that they cut across vertical reservations. The persons
selected against this quota will be placed in the appropriate category so that if
a candidate, for instance, belongs to SC category, such a candidate will be
placed in that quota by making necessary adjustments. In other words, once
selected, the candidate would be placed in the category to which he or she
belongs after making necessary adjustments.
Page 9 of 20
[15] Finally, learned counsel also relies on another decision of a
Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Shri Prabir Datta vs. the State of
Tripura and others; WP(C) No.1166 of 2016, decided on 07.02.2017,
wherein principle of reservation for persons with disability was lucidly
explained at paragraph Nos. 9 and 10, which read thus:
“[9] After appreciating the contentions of the learned counsel for the
parties, it appears that the process that has been followed by the
respondents is not in conformity to the provisions of Sections 32
and 33 of the said act. The reservation for backward classes is
called vertical reservation and the reservation for the persons with
disability (PWDs) and Ex -serviceman is called horizontal
reservation. The horizontal reservation cuts across the vertical
reservation and that process is called interlocking reservation. The
persons selected against the quota for the persons with the
disabilities (PWDs) have to be placed in the appropriate category
viz. SC/ST/UR depending on the category to which they belonged in
the roster, meaning for reservation of SCs/STs etc. To illustrate, if
any given year, there are 2(two) vacancies reserved for the persons
with disabilities (PWDs) and out of two persons with disabilities
(PWDs) so appointed, one belongs to SC and the other to the
unreserved category, then the disabled SC candidate shall be
adjusted against the SC point against the reservation roster and the
unreserved category against unreserved point in the relevant
reservation roster. In case, none of the vacancies falls on point to
reserve for the SC, the PWD belonging to SC shall be adjusted in
future against the next available vacancy reserved for SC. Thus, it is
amply clear that initially the posts/vacancies will not be earmarked
for reserved category even following the 4 Cycles of 100 Point
Roster. In this regard, in Rajeev Kumar Gupta and others vs. Union
of India and others, reported in AIR 2016 SC 3228, the apex court
has observed as under:
“24. A combined reading of Sections 32 and 33 of the 1995
Act explicates a fine and designed balance between
requirements of administration and the imperative to
provide greater opportunities to PWD. Therefore, as
detailed in the first part of our analysis, the identification
exercise under Section 32 is crucial. Once a post is
identified, it means that a PWD is fully capable of
discharging the functions associated with the identified
post. Once found to be so capable, reservation under
Section 33 to an extent of not less than three per cent must
follow. Once the post is identified, it must be reserved for
PWD irrespective of the mode of recruitment adopted by
the State for filling up of the said post.”
[Emphasis added]
[10] Again in Rajeev Kumar Gupta (supra) it has been held that
Article 16(1) is an instance of classification. The principle is that the
State shall not discriminate (which normally includes preference) on
the basis of any one of the factors mentioned in Article 16(1). Article
16(4) does not disable the State from providing differential treatment
(reservations) to other classes of citizens under Article 16(1) if they
otherwise deserve such treatment. It may, therefore, be said that the
reservation under Article 16(1) of the Constitution curves out an
exception from the reservation as provided being enabled by Article
16(4) of the Constitution. Hence, before selection and recruitment,
Page 10 of 20
the reservation for backward classes [such as SCs/STs] cannot be
applied to the identified posts for the persons with disability
(PWDs). Initially, they shall be selected and recruited and thereafter,
considering their status they shall be adjusted in the 4 Cycles of 100
Point Roster by way of interlocking reservation.”
[16] Mr. Bhaumik, learned counsel, therefore, prays for necessary
direction to the respondents for considering the cases of the petitioners for
their selection against the post of Multi Tasking Staff (Group-D) and also for
LDC and other posts, under Group-C category in case of Joyjit Chowdhury
[petitioner of WP(C) 695 of 2024].
[17] Mr. Mangal Debbarma, learned Addl. GA representing the State
respondents in WP(C) No.694 of 2024, WP(C) No.784 of 2024 and WP(C)
No.785 of 2024, in his reply refers to paragraph No.2 of Office Memorandum
dated 09.01.2019 (Annexure-A of the lead case) which is extracted hereunder:
“2. QUANTUM OF RESERVATION
2.1 In case of direct recruitment, four per cent of the total
number of vacancies to be filled up by direct recruitment, in the
cadre strength in each group of posts i.e. Groups A,B,C and D
shall be reserved horizontally for persons with benchmark
disabilities.
2.2 Against the posts identified for each disabilities of which,
one per cent each shall be reserved for persons with benchmark
disabilities under clauses (a), (b), and (c) and one per cent, under
clauses (d) and (e), unless excluded under the provisions of Para
3 hereunder.
(a) blindness and low vision;
(b) deaf and hard of hearing;
(c) locomotor disability including cerebral palsy,
leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular
dystrophy;
(d) autism, intellectual disability, specific learning
disability and mental illness;
(e) multiple disabilities from amongst persons under
clauses (a) to (d) including deaf-blindness.”
[18] Mr. Debbarma, learned Addl. GA also refers to clause No. 9 of the
said Office Memorandum and submits that in the case in hand horizontal
reservation has been made in terms of Office Memorandum dated 09.01.2019
Page 11 of 20
and also in the spirit of the provisions of “Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Act, 2016” and therefore, prior to final selection of persons in disability
category, posts have been earmarked as to how they will be accommodated
against UR category, against SC category and also against ST category and
therefore, no anomaly has been committed by the JRBT authority. Learned
Addl. GA further submits that at the time of filling up of the application form for
applying for the posts under disability quota, the applicants were also asked to
mention as to which category they belonged i.e. UR, SC or ST category, so
that they could be accommodated accordingly against the posts earmarked for
disabled persons against UR, SC or ST category.
[19] Mr. D. Sarma, learned Addl. G.A. representing the State
respondents in WP(C) No.695 of 2024 also submits that the respondents
JRBT properly made the selection procedure in accordance with the provision
of the Tripura Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Reservation Act, 1991
and also by effecting horizontal reservation for physically challenged persons
in accordance with the RPwD Act, 2016. He further relies on a decision of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India and another vs. National
Federation of the Blind and others; (2013) 10 SCC 772. In said case, the
issue raised was whether three per cent reservation for persons with
disabilities should be of the total cadre strength or whether it should be three
per cent of the vacancies arising in the posts which were identified for the
persons with disabilities. Hon’ble Supreme Court decided the issue holding
that computation of reservation for persons with disabilities had to be
computed in case of Group A, B, C and D posts in an identical manner viz.
“computing 3% reservation on total number of vacancies in the cadre strength”
and further held that the reservation for persons with disabilities had nothing to
do with the ceiling of 50% and hence, the law laid down in Indra Sawhney in
this regard was not applicable with respect to the disabled persons.
[20] Mr. Sarma, learned Addl. G.A. also relies on another decision of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajeev Kumar Gupta and others vs.
Union of India and others; (2016) 13 SCC 153. In said case, the employees
of Prasar Bharati Corporation of India filed the writ petition challenging two
office Memoranda issued by the Department of Personnel and Training,
Government of India with grievance that those Memoranda deprived them of
Page 12 of 20
statutory benefit of reservation under the 1995 Act with reference to Group A
and Group B posts in Prasar Bharati. One of the said Memoranda provided for
three per cent reservation in identified posts falling in Group C and Group D
irrespective of the mode of recruitment but such benefit of reservation was
excluded in respect of Group A and Group B posts. Finally, Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that such Memoranda were illegal and the Government was
directed to extend three per cent reservation to PWD in all identified posts in
Group A and Group B, irrespective of mode of filling up of such posts. It was
also observed by the Apex Court that a combined reading of Sections 32 and
33 of the 1995 Act explicated a fine and designed balance between the
requirements of administration and the imperative to provide greater
opportunities to PWD. Therefore, the identification exercised under Section 32
of the Act is crucial and once a post is identified, reservation under Section 33
to an extent of not less than three per cent must follow.
[21] Mr. Sarma, learned Addl. G.A. lastly relies on another decision of
Division Bench of this Court in the case of the State of Tripura and others
vs. Md. Suruk Ali (WA No.451 of 2020 decided on 11.12.2023) wherein
learned Writ Court observed that 24 numbers of Group-C posts meant for
scheduled tribes/hearing category was lying vacant whereas the writ petitioner
was an UR category candidate with locomotor disability. Learned Writ Court in
that context, held that physically handicapped persons themselves form a
different class and total 119 numbers of posts were kept reserved for this class
of person. Further, reservation for a particular class i.e., for hearing category
persons was not permissible in law and the advertisement as issued by the
State-respondents only classified the physically disabled persons as eligible
for being appointed to those posts. Further observation of learned Writ Court
was also that the respondents while issuing advertisement did not specify the
number of posts to be reserved for persons having any particular type of
disability and having found no such stipulation in the advertisement, the
petitioner deserved to be considered for appointment against the vacant posts,
and as 24 numbers of post under Group-C category was still lying vacant, the
State-respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner
sympathetically, and appoint him in any Group-C posts within the said 24
posts. The Division Bench set aside the judgment of the learned Writ Court
taking note of the fact that said 24 posts belonged to hearing disability in ST
Page 13 of 20
category whereas the petitioner belonged to the unreserved category and
suffered from locomotor disability. The Division Bench therefore held that the
learned Writ Court fell in error in treating the vacant post of ST hearing
category as available for being considered for appointment of a person who
suffered from locomotor disability in the unreserved category and therefore,
said order of appointment of the petitioner in hearing category was not
permissible.
[22] This Court has appreciated the submissions of both sides. Before
entering into the legal issue as involved, the way as to how the Directorate of
Social Welfare and Social Education ascertained said vertical reservation and
horizontal reservation in respect of these two selection processes, requires a
reference.
[23] It is submitted from the bar that the Directorate of Social Welfare
and Social Education Department is the nodal department who takes the task
of ascertaining the number of posts earmarked under horizontal reservation.
As per the advertisements, there were total 2410 vacant posts for Group–C
and total 2500 vacant posts for Multi Tasking Staff (Group-D) which were
required to be filled up. Regarding filling up of those posts, when matter was
referred to Social Welfare and Social Education Department, they calculated
the horizontal reservation in terms of the guidelines dated 09.01.2019 in the
following manner which was communicated by them vide their letter dated
29.11.2021 (Annexure R-6 of the lead case).
Group C A B C D
Category Reservation (a) blindness
and low
vision
(b) deaf
and hard
of hearing
(c)
locomotor
disability
including
cerebral
palsy,
leprosy
cured,
dwarfism,
acid attack
victims and
muscular
dystrophy
(d) autism,
intellectual
disability, specific
learning disability
and mental
illness;
(e) multiple
disabilities from
amongst persons
under Column (A)
to (D) including
deaf-blindness in
the posts
identified for each
disabilities.
TOTAL
of each
category
UR 50 12 12 14 12 50
ST 30 7 7 9 7 30
SC 16 4 4 4 4 16
Total 96 23 23 27 23
Page 14 of 20
Group D A B C D
Category Reservation (a) blindness
and low
vision
(b) deaf
and hard
of hearing
(c)
locomotor
disability
including
cerebral
palsy,
leprosy
cured,
dwarfism,
acid attack
victims and
muscular
dystrophy
(d) autism,
intellectual
disability, specific
learning disability
and mental
illness;
(e) multiple
disabilities from
amongst persons
under Column (A)
to (D) including
deaf-blindness in
the posts
identified for each
disabilities.
TOTAL
of each
category
UR 52 13 13 13 13 52
ST 31 8 7 8 8 31
SC 17 4 4 5 4 17
Total 100 25 24 26 25
This chart is contained in the letter of Directorate of Social Welfare
and Social Education Department communicated to the Chairman of JRBT
dated 29.11.2021 (Annexure-R-6) of the Counter Affidavit of the lead case.
[24] As already discussed earlier, initially, the JRBT issued
advertisement dated 03.12.2020 for filling up 2500 numbers of vacant post of
Multi Tasking Staffs, Group-D (non-technical) under Annexure 1 of WP(C)
No.694 of 2024 wherein it was further mentioned that the State Government
policy on reservation shall be followed. Another advertisement was
subsequently issued by JRBT on 12.02.2021 [Annexure 1 of WP(C) No. 695 of
2024] in modification of earlier advertisement No.01/2020 dated 27.11.2020
regarding filling up of 1500 number vacant post of LDC. In the subsequent
advertisement dated 12.02.2021, apart from those 1500 numbers of posts of
LDC, further new posts of Agricultural Assistant (Except TAFS Grade-III) (22
posts), Agricultural Assistant (TAFS Grade-III) (443 posts), Junior Operator
(Pump) (236 posts) and Junior Multi Tasking Operator (Un-common) (209
posts), total 2410 numbers of vacant Group-C (non-gazetted) posts were
advertised. The petitioner of WP(C) No.694 of 2024 first applied for the post of
Multi Tasking Staff (Group-D) pursuant to said advertisement dated
03.12.2020 and again he applied for the Group-C post against advertisement
dated 12.02.2021. He is a candidate of low vision category. In said
examination for the Group-D posts, the petitioner Joyjit Chowdhury obtained
total 49.738 marks but said selection list under Annexure 3 shows that one
Page 15 of 20
Tapan Biswas (SC) who obtained 49.682 marks with benchmark disability-
blindness, another Bishnu Pada Das (SC) with benchmark disability-blindness
who obtained 49.627 marks, one Lovely Bardhan (SC) with benchmark
disability-low vision who obtained 49.1282 marks, another Amarendra Reang
(ST) with benchmark disability-visual impairment who obtained 46.0357 marks,
another Bikash Reang (ST) with benchmark disability-blindness who obtained
42.139 marks, another Baku Mog (ST) with benchmark disability-low vision
who obtained 36.666 marks and another Sapi Debbarma (ST) with
benchmark disability-low vision who obtained 33.7102 marks were selected
despite they scored lesser mark than the present petitioner. Even in the said
notification, it was further mentioned that three numbers of vacant posts
against benchmark disability of blindness and low vision meant for ST
category of candidate could not be filled up and left vacant. Thus, what
appears from above said select list is that the JRBT did not consider the merit
of the candidates, rather before the selection process was complete, they
already earmarked the posts meant for disabled persons quota in the vertical
reservation of UR, SC and ST category and therefore, despite securing lesser
mark than the petitioner, those persons were declared selected for said posts.
[25] In case of WP(C) No.784 of 2024, the petitioners namely, Ranjit
Debnath (UR category) and Santi Prasad Das (SC category) also applied for
the post of Multi Tasking Staff (Group-D) against the said advertisement
No.02/2020 dated 03.12.2020 like said Joyjit Chowdhury and both of them are
having locomotor disability. Ranjit Debnath scored total 50.529 marks and
Santi Prasad Das obtained total 40.258 marks whereas one person namely,
Badal Tripura (ST) with benchmark disability-locomotor disability who secured
49.158 marks, another Tuhina Kalai (ST) with benchmark disability-locomotor
disability who scored 48.714 marks, another Durjadhan Debbarma (ST) with
benchmark disability-locomotor disability who obtained 48.328 marks, another
Babu Mog (ST) with benchmark disability-locomotor disability who obtained
46.273 marks and also one Happy Jamatia (ST) with benchmark disability-
locomotor disability who obtained 44.557 marks are recommended as selected
candidates though they scored lesser marks than Ranjit Debnath.
[26] In WP(C) No.785 of 2024, petitioner Rajesh Chakraborty (UR
category) with benchmark disability of low vision also similarly applied for the
Page 16 of 20
post of Multi Tasking Staff (Group-D) in pursuance of said advertisement
No.02/2020 dated 03.12.2020 and he scored total 37.109 marks and from the
said notification dated 07.09.2024 it is found that one Baku Mog (ST), another
Prasenjit Debbarma (ST) and Sapi Debbarma (ST) despite scoring lesser
marks than him in benchmark disability of blindness have been selected
mentioning that three ST posts for such blindness and low vision category
were left vacant and could not be filled up.
[27] Said letter of Director of Social Welfare and Social Education
dated 29.11.2021 (Annexure R-6 of the lead case) shows that said Directorate
of Social Welfare and Social Education furnished a roster wise reservation
status for both Group C and Group D posts (indicated in paragraph No.23
above).
[28] In case of WP(C) No.695 of 2024 as stated above, the petitioner
Joyjit Chowdhury (UR category) applied for Group C post in respect of
advertisement dated 12.02.2021 comprising total vacancy of 2410 posts. The
petitioner obtained total 86 marks and from the said selection list, it is found
that he is a candidate of UR category with benchmark disability of low vision.
However, from the selection list, it appears that one person namely, Paritosh
Goala (UR) having benchmark disability of low vision category scored only 82
marks but he has been selected as Junior Operator (Pump) and JRBT in the
said notification also mentioned that seven posts under blindness and low
vision category could not be filled up.
[29] Further, it is not clear as to how the State Respondents
ascertained 4% reservation for Lower Division Clerk, Agricultural Assistant
(Except TAFS Grade-III), Agricultural Assistant (TAFS Grade-III), Junior
Operator (Pump) and Junior Multi Tasking Operator (Un-common) together.
Such categorization of horizontal reservation for persons with disabilities is
required to be made separately for each group of posts in the cadre strength in
each establishment in view of provision of Section 34 of RPwD Act, 2016. The
essential qualifications are different for above said posts mentioned in the
advertisement of 2021 and all those posts form different cadres. Therefore, all
the posts cannot be amalgamated together for ascertaining 4% reservation
under RPwD Act.
Page 17 of 20
[30] The State Government also issued a guideline on 09.01.2019
[Annexure A of rejoinder affidavit of WP(C) No.694 of 2024] which has been
heavily relied on by the respondents but in the said instruction also, against
clause No. 2.1 it has been clearly mentioned that four per cent of the total
vacancies will be filled up by direct recruitment in the cadre strength (emphasis
laid) in each group of posts i.e. Groups A, B, C and D reserved horizontally for
persons with benchmark disability. In clause Nos.9.1 and 9.2, it is also
categorically stated that reservation for backward classes are vertical
reservation and reservation for persons with disability is horizontal reservation,
with further mention that horizontal reservation cut across vertical reservation
which is called interlocking reservation and the persons selected against the
quota for persons with benchmark disabilities have to be placed in appropriate
category viz. SC/ST/Unreserved category depending upon the category to
which they belong in the roster meant for reservation of SCs/STs. Even an
illustration has also been incorporated in the said clause that if in a given year
there are two vacancies reserved for the persons with benchmark disabilities
and out of two persons with benchmark disabilities appointed, one belongs to
Scheduled Caste and the other to Unreserved category, then the SC
candidate with benchmark disability shall be adjusted against the SC point in
the reservation roster and the Unreserved candidate with benchmark disability
will be adjusted against unreserved point in the relevant reservation roster. In
case none of the vacancies falls on point reserved for the SCs, the candidate
under benchmark disability belonging to SC shall be adjusted in future against
the next available vacancy reserved for SCs. These guidelines do not contain
any instruction for compartmentalization of such horizontal reservation. The
relevant clause Nos. 9.1 and 9.2 are also extracted hereunder:
“9.1. Reservation for backward classes of citizens (SCs and
STs) is called vertical reservation and the reservation for categories
such as persons with benchmark disabilities and ex-servicemen is
called horizontal reservation. Horizontal reservation cuts across
vertical reservation (in what is called interlocking reservation) and
persons selected against the quota for persons with benchmark
disabilities have to be placed in appropriate category viz.
SC/ST/Unreserved depending upon the c ategory to which they
belong in the roster meant for reservation of SCs/STs. To illustrate,
if in a given year there are two vacancies reserved for the persons
with benchmark disabilities and out of two persons with benchmark
disabilities appointed, one belongs to Scheduled Caste and the
other to Unreserved category, then the SC candidate with
benchmark disability shall be adjusted against the SC point in the
reservation roster and the Unreserved candidate with benchmark
disability against unreserved point in the relevant reservation
Page 18 of 20
roster. In case none of the vacancies falls on point reserved for the
SCs, the candidate under benchmark disability belonging to SC
shall be adjusted in future against the next available vacancy
reserved for SCs.
9.2. Since the person with benchmark disabilities have to be
placed in the appropriate category viz. SC/ST/Unreserved in the
roster meant for reservation of SCs/STs, the application form for the
post should require the candidates applying under the quota
reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities to indicate
whether they belong to SC/ST or unreserved. Thus, reservation for
persons with benchmark disabilities is horizontal.”
[31] As already discussed above, in both the advertisements, nowhere
there is mention of making such compartmentalization of those posts reserved
for persons with disabilities in the vertical column of reservation for SC/ST
candidates but despite the same as is mentioned in paragraph No.23 above,
the Social Welfare and Social Education Department has compartmentalized
such posts by specifying the number of such posts in the vertical reservation
violating the guidelines issued by the State Government and also violating the
law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Indra Sawhney
(supra) and by this High Court in case of Prabir Datta (supra) as extracted
earlier. As a result, the persons getting higher marks in the selection list have
been deprived of getting appointment and persons scoring lesser marks have
been declared as selected. For the above reasons, interference is called for in
these writ petitions.
[32] In respect of WP(C) No.695 of 2024, the final selection list issued
vide notification dated 13.09.2023 was already under challenge in another writ
petition bearing No. WP(C) 264 of 2024 in between Sri Kinkar Bhowmik vs.
the State of Tripura and others and this Court vide judgment dated
12.08.2025 directed the respondents to take up again the process of filling up
of rest vacant posts of LDC, Junior Operator (Pump), Junior Multitasking
Operator (Uncommon) and Agricultural Assistant (TAFS Grade III) by calling
the candidates who scored cut off marks i.e. qualifying marks or above in the
written examination but were not called for viva voce, to fill up the rest vacant
posts. However, Mr. Arijit Bhaumik, learned counsel submits that said
judgment did not deal with the issue as involved in these writ petitions and in
the present cases all the candidates were called for viva voce and marks were
allotted to them in such interview and as such, there is no chance of any
conflict between the said decision rendered in Kinkar Bhowmik and the
Page 19 of 20
decision if any, passed in these cases regarding filling up of the posts reserved
for persons with benchmark disabilities.
[33] The basic issue involved in the present case is quite different with
the issues involved in the decisions as are referred by Mr. D. Sarma, learned
Addl. G.A. and therefore, those decisions cannot be applied here.
[34] The respondents were required to scrupulously follow the
procedure as laid down in Indra Sawhney (supra) and Prabir Datta (supra)
and also clause 9 of the guidelines issued by the State Government dated
09.01.2019, but they failed. Therefore, the writ petitions are allowed with the
following directions-
[A] So far, the three writ petitions bearing Nos.
WP(C) 694 of 2024, WP(C) 784 of 2024 and WP(C) 785 of 2024
are concerned, the respondents shall consider the selection of the
candidates having benchmark disabilities according to their own
merit i.e. on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the
selection process and thereafter they will be accommodated in the
vertical reservation meant for UR/SC/ST candidates based on the
categories to which they belong and a fresh selection list shall be
published accordingly. In this process, if any person/persons
is/are found not eligible to be selected who is/are earlier shown
selected in the related selection list as impugned herein and is/are
already appointed, liberty will be there to the State respondents to
take necessary steps in this regard, for cancellation of his/their
appointment after observing due procedure;
[B] Now, so far as WP(C) No.695 of 2024 is
concerned, regarding the matter of candidates with benchmark
disability in respect of said advertisement dated 12.02.2021, the
State respondents will first collect information about the number of
posts reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities in each
cadre of each establishment in pursuance of what are discussed
in earlier paragraphs and then shall follow the directions contained
in paragraph No.34(A) above and in terms of Section 34 of RPwD
Act, 2016. A post-wise fresh list of selected candidates separately
Page 20 of 20
for each of the posts i.e. LDC, Agriculture Assistant (Except
TAFS, Grade III), Agriculture Assistant (TAFS, Grade III), Junior
Operator (Pump) and Junior Multi Tasking Operator (un-common)
based on the merit of the candidates, shall be published
accordingly. Needless to say, in this process also, if any
person/persons is/are found not eligible to be selected who is/are
earlier shown selected in the related selection list as impugned
herein and is/are already appointed, liberty will be there to the
State respondents to take necessary steps in this regard, for
cancellation of his/their appointment after observing due
procedure.
[C] The entire exercise of the total process in relation to
both the advertisements as mentioned in sub-paragraph Nos. [A]
and [B] above shall be completed within 04 (four) months from the
date of receipt of copy of this order.
No order as to costs.
With such observations and directions, all the writ petitions are
disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
JUDGE
Rudradeep
Legal Notes
Add a Note....