SHARAD BAJIRAO PATIL v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
High Court Directs MPSC to Consider Visually Impaired Candidate Despite Typographical Error; Emphasizes Proactive Approach Under Disabilities Act.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-KOL:4149-DB
Decision Date: 18-12-2025
List of Laws
The Constitution of India; Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016; Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
- Facts: The Petitioner, a 100% visually impaired person, applied for the post of Clerk-Typist reserved for the Divyang category in the Maharashtra Group-C Services Main Examination-2023 conducted by the MPSC. He successfully cleared both the Preliminary and Main Examinations, securing high marks. However, his application was disqualified because, during the Preliminary Examination application, the computer operator inadvertently marked "NO" against the question of whether he possessed a domicile certificate, despite the fact that the domicile certificate was uploaded. The MPSC did not allow him to rectify this error.
- Procedural Posture: The Petitioner filed a Civil Writ Petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur, seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the MPSC to include his name in the list of candidates eligible for recommendation.
- Issue: Whether the MPSC was justified in excluding the Petitioner from the selection process based on a typographical error in the online application form, despite the fact that the Petitioner had uploaded the required domicile certificate and was otherwise qualified and meritorious. Further, whether the MPSC should have considered the uploaded documents and provided an opportunity to rectify the error, especially considering the Petitioner's disability.
- Holding: The High Court held that the MPSC's action was not justifiable and directed the MPSC to include the Petitioner's name in the list of candidates eligible for recommendation. The Writ Petition was allowed.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the MPSC's approach was hyper-technical and apathetic, sacrificing merit at the altar of technicalities. The Court emphasized that the Petitioner had uploaded the Domicile Certificate, fulfilling the essential requirement. The error was a mere typographical mistake committed by the computer operator due to the Petitioner's blindness. The Court also noted that the MPSC should have verified the uploaded documents and provided an opportunity to rectify the error, especially considering the object of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which is to ensure equality and empowerment of disabled persons. The Court also cited the case of Shabana Rashid Pinjari vs. Maharashtra Public Service Commission, emphasizing the duty of the respondent to ensure that persons with disabilities are not deprived of the laudable object for which the Disabilities Act is enacted. The court also noted that the MPSC should have cautiously and sensitively verified the "Record" submitted by the candidates who crossed cut off marks.
🔒 For Members Only