PRABHU KUMAR v. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Invalidity of Prescribing Maximum Disability Ceilings in Public Employment and the Mandatory Application of the Principle of Reasonable Accommodation under the RPwD Act, 2016.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2026 INSC 253
Decision Date: 11-03-2026
List of Laws
The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016; Constitution of India, Articles 14, 16, and 21; Principle of Reasonable Accommodation; Service Law - Reservation for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities
- Facts: The appellant, a practicing advocate with 90% permanent locomotor disability, applied for the post of Assistant District Attorney (ADA) in Himachal Pradesh under the physically handicapped quota. Although he topped the merit list for the reserved category and was recommended by the Public Service Commission, the State Government withheld his appointment. The exclusion was based on a stipulation in the recruitment advertisement which prescribed that candidates under the disabled category must have a disability between 40% and 60% in one leg or one arm. Since the appellant’s disability was 90%, the State deemed him ineligible despite his success in the competitive examination and interview.
- Procedural Posture: The appellant challenged his exclusion before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh via a writ petition. The High Court dismissed the petition, relying on the precedent in V. Surendra Mohan v. State of Tamil Nadu, which held that employers could prescribe maximum disability limits. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court of India via this civil appeal.
- Issue: Whether the State can validly prescribe an upper limit or "ceiling" of disability percentage to exclude candidates from public employment, and whether such a restriction violates the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the Constitution of India.
- Holding: Yes, the appeal is allowed. The Court held that fixing an upper limit of disability is arbitrary, lacks a rational nexus with the duties of the post, and is in gross violation of the statutory mandate and fundamental rights.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the RPwD Act, 2016 defines a "floor" (40%) for benchmark disability but does not authorize the State to create an arbitrary "ceiling" to exclude those with higher disabilities. The Court noted that the precedent relied upon by the High Court (V. Surendra Mohan) had been expressly overruled by a three-judge bench in Vikash Kumar v. U.P.S.C., which established the principle of "reasonable accommodation". The Court observed that the appellant’s decade-long successful law practice proved that 90% disability did not impede his professional functionality. Furthermore, the State failed to conduct any scientific or expert assessment to justify why a 60% limit was necessary for the role of an ADA, which primarily requires mental alacrity and legal acumen rather than physical perfection.
🔒 For Members Only