- Case
- SHABANA RASHID PINJARI v. MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION THOR. ITS CHAIRMAN (Bombay High Court, 08-04-2025)
- Law
- Constitution of India, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.
Facts: The petitioner, a 100% visually impaired candidate, applied for the post of Clerk-Typist under the Person with Disability category in response to an advertisement by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC). While filling the online preference form with assistance from an internet cafe, she inadvertently selected "no preference" for the appointing authority. She immediately informed the MPSC of the error and requested to correct it, but the MPSC rejected her request, citing that the examination scheme did not permit modifying the preference option.
Procedural Posture: The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the MPSC's rejection letter and direct the MPSC to provide an opportunity to correct the error in her preference form.
Issue: Whether the MPSC's refusal to allow the petitioner, a visually impaired candidate, to correct an inadvertent error in her preference form for an appointing authority is justified, considering the principles of reasonable accommodation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act).
Holding: The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the MPSC's rejection letter, and directed the MPSC to provide the petitioner an opportunity to edit/modify the option in the preference form.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the MPSC's rigid adherence to the examination scheme, without considering the petitioner's disability and the principle of reasonable accommodation, was insensitive and not in consonance with the objective of the RPwD Act. The Court emphasized that the RPwD Act mandates ensuring equal opportunities for people with disabilities by making adjustments to meet their specific needs. The Court noted that the error was inadvertent, the request for correction was made within the extended time limit for submitting the preference order, and rectifying the error would not prejudice anyone. The Court relied on several Supreme Court judgments, including Vikas Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission, which clarified the meaning and scope of reasonable accommodation. The Court observed that "a technical consideration can never outweigh any decision which furthers the laudable object in enacting the RPwD Act" and that candidates with disabilities, particularly those with visual impairment, need to be viewed differently.
