Patna High Court
Vishwambhar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The court held that the disabled O.H. vacancy must be re‑assessed in accordance with the statutory 3% horizontal reservation and the merit list, and the selection of the lower‑scoring candidate was not legally sustainable.
Summary
The petitioner, a orthopaedically disabled candidate, applied for the 56th‑59th Bihar Combined Competitive Examination, secured 820 marks and was eligible for the disabled (O.H.) quota, but his name was omitted from the final list of 736 successful candidates. He discovered that Archana Kumari, who scored only 811 marks and was placed lower (serial no. 1178) in the merit list, was selected for the Rural Development Officer post under the disabled O.H. category. The petitioner alleged violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution and of the Persons with Disabilities Act, claiming that the 3% horizontal reservation for disabled candidates was not correctly applied and that a vacancy earmarked for a BCL‑female disabled candidate was improperly used. The Bihar Public Service Commission argued that the vacancy was specifically reserved for a BCL‑female disabled candidate and that the petitioner did not meet the general‑category cut‑off of 848 marks. The court examined the statutory reservation policy, the Supreme Court’s pronouncements on horizontal reservation, and the calculation of disabled‑category vacancies, concluding that the vacancy should be re‑worked and filled from the eligible O.H. candidates. Consequently, the court ordered a fresh assessment of the disabled O.H. vacancy and disposed of the writ petition, leaving the respondent’s appointment undisturbed pending the re‑assessment.
Issues considered
- Whether the selection of a lower‑scoring candidate under the disabled O.H. quota violates Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution.
- Whether the 3% horizontal reservation for persons with disabilities was correctly calculated and applied in the 56th‑59th examinations.
- Whether a vacancy earmarked for a BCL‑female disabled candidate can be filled by a general‑category disabled candidate.
- Whether the Bihar Public Service Commission’s recommendation is liable to be quashed on grounds of arbitrary or illegal selection.
Legislation cited
- Equal Opportunity Right Protection and Completion Act, 1945
- Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995
- Right to Information Act, 2005
Subjects
- reservation
- horizontal reservation
- disability quota
- persons with disabilities act
- public service commission
- merit list
- equality
- articles 14 16 21
- Bihar
- Rural Development Officer
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20547 of 2018
======================================================
Vishwambhar Singh Son of Late Ram Bahadur Singh, Resident of Village-
Sanduar, Post Office Dayalpur, Police Station- Janta Bazar, District Saran at
Chapra.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department,
Government of Bihar, New Secretariat Building, Bailey Road, Patna-
800001.
3. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of
Bihar, Old Secretariat Building, Patna- 800015.
4. Bihar Public Service Commission, through its Secretary, Bailey Road, Patna.
5. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna.
6. The Joint Secretary cum Examination Controller, Bihar Public Service
Commission, Bailey Road, Patna.
7. Archana Kumari, Daughter of and wife of name not known to the petitioner
Rural Development Officer, through the Principal Secretary, Rural
Development Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat Building,
Patna- 800015.
8. Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Bihar Government,
Patna, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vishwambhar Singh (In-Person)
For the Respondent/s : Mr. G.P. 20
For the BPSC : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Kanishka Shankar, Advocate
For the Respondent no.7: Mr. Bishwa Bibhuti Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 23-06-2026
Heard the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
“(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of
writ of certiorari for quashing the part of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2018 dt.23-06-2026
2/38
result published under the signature of Joint
Secretary -cum-Examination Controller,
Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna by
which the private respondent Archana
Kumari, whose name stands at Serial No. 22
under Item No. 9, Rural Development
Officer have been declared selected
candidates under the disabled O.H. being
Roll No. 342867, merit list serial no. 1178
against the advertisement published by
Bihar Public Service Commission of 56th,
57th, 58th and 59th of combined competitive
examination as contained in Annexure-2.
(ii) Also for declaring decision of selection
of Archana Kumari who has got lesser mark
than the petitioner under disabled quota to
Item no. 9 Rural Development Officer is
based on hostile discrimination and
violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India.
(iii) Also for commanding the respondents to
publish the result of the petitioner as a
successful candidate under most backward
class and maintain the seniority of the
petitioner on the basis of the marks obtained
by the petitioner being total marks 820
whereas the private respondent has got 819
marks only
(iv) Also for declaring the decision of
selection of private respondent having lesser
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2018 dt.23-06-2026
3/38
marks than the petitioner is illegal and bad
in law.
(v) Also for giving the petitioner all
consequential benefits of service and
monitory benefit of service, seniority from
the date the juniors to the petitioner have
been appointed against Advertisement No.
58th Combined Competitive Examination
published in daily newspaper as contained in
Annexure-.
(vi) Also for commanding the Bihar Public
Service Commission to recommend 4 more
vacancies in general category. Only result of
18 persons has been placed in place of 22 on
the ground total vacancies is 736.
(vii) Also for necessary relief/reliefs as well
as necessary direction be given for the ends
of justice.
Brief Facts Of Case
3. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ
petition are that an advertisement was issued for 56th to 59th
Combined Preliminary Competitive Examination for 22
services, having total 746 vacancies, wherein it was indicated
that quota for disabled candidate will also be given as per the
Government Resolution contained in memo no. 62 dated
05.01.2007 and relaxation of age of 10 years will be given in the
disabled category. The petitioner having the requisite
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2018 dt.23-06-2026
4/38
qualification submitted his application in the prescribed
performa within the cut-off date. Admit-card was issued to the
petitioner for appearing in the examination, which was held on
15.03.2015 and the petitioner appeared at Motihari Centre.
Results were published, wherein the petitioner was declared
successful and subsequently, he appeared in the Mains
Examination, which was conducted from 8th July, 2016 to 25th
July 2016 and was also declared successful in the Mains
Examination. Thereafter, he was called to appear for interview
on 08.05.2018, in which he also appeared on the said date. The
final result was published by the Bihar Public Service
Commission (hereinafter referred to as BPSC), Patna, on
18.08.2018, wherein altogether 736 candidates were declared
successful, to be appointed in 21 services, however, the name of
the petitioner does not find place in the list of successful
candidates. The petitioner came to know that he has secured 820
marks. The petitioner belongs to disabled quota of Ortho. The
petitioner obtained/downloaded the marks of some other
candidates namely Vikram Kumar, merit list serial no. 1042 and
Umesh Kumar Das, merit list serial no. 1031. From perusal of
the marks obtained by both the above-mentioned candidates, the
petitioner came to know that Vikram Kumar had obtained 819
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2018 dt.23-06-2026
5/38
marks in the category of Scheduled Castes candidates and
Umesh Kumar Das had secured 820 marks in the same category.
Further, one another candidate namely Archana Kumari,
backward-class lady (BCL) category was placed at serial no.
1178 in the merit list. It is the case of the petitioner that since
Vikram Kumar and Umesh Kumar Das who have secured 819
and 820 marks respectively and the petitioner who has also
secured 820 marks, must be above in the merit list, than
Archana Kumari, (respondent no.07) herein, who has been
finally selected to the post of Rural Development Officer. It is
the case of the petitioner that since the petitioner could not
obtain the marks of Archana Kumari, but from the rank i.e.
1178, it appears that the marks of Archana Kumari, who has
been selected in the disabled category, must be lesser than the
petitioner, only for the reason that Vikram Kumar who was
placed at serial no. 1042 in the merit list has been placed in
general rank. It is further case of the petitioner that as per the
advertisement 3% quota was to be given to the disabled
category candidates in horizontal reservation, as per the
resolution of the State Government dated 05.01.2007. The
circular dated 05.01.2007, prescribed for 3% quota for disabled
candidate, in tune with the Disabilities Security Act, 1995 and
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2018 dt.23-06-2026
6/38
were to be adjusted against the respective quota, meaning
thereby that at the time of selection, there will be no
reservation, rather after selection they will be adjusted against
their respective quota and once the petitioner has secured 820
marks and the person who had obtained 820 marks has been
placed at merit list serial no. 1031 and Archana Kumari
(respondent no. 07) who has been placed at merit list 1178, must
have got lesser marks than the petitioner, even then she has been
finally declared to be successful under the disabled O.H.
category candidate, which is in violation of provisions
contained in Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
It is the case of the petitioner that since the petitioner has got
higher marks than Archana Kumari and both belongs to the
disabled quota, even then, Archana Kumari has been selected,
therefore, the action of the respondent authorities in selecting
Archana Kumari in place of the petitioner is not permissible.
Further, as per the advertisement, total 736 vacancies were
available, therefore, the total seats for disabled category
candidates comes to 22, however, in the final result which has
been published by the BPSC, only 18 candidates in the disabled
category have been selected, which suggest that 3% horizontal
reservation has not been given to the disabled category
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2018 dt.23-06-2026
7/38
candidates and 4 vacancies are still left for the said category, to
be filled up.
4. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf
of the petitioner wherein it has been stated that he got
information under Right to Information Act, 2005 that Archana
Kumari has secured 811 marks under disabled quota (Ortho).
Since the petitioner has secured 820 marks and Archana Kumari
has secured 811 marks, she should have been placed below the
petitioner in the merit list, but the name of the petitioner does
not find figure in the merit list and respondent no. 07, despite
securing 811 marks has been declared to be successful.
5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
BPSC, wherein it has been stated that 736 vacancies were
advertised and thereafter, the final merit list was prepared on the
basis of the marks of written examination, as well as marks
obtained in interview and the selection has been done as per the
merit list. The recommendation of successful candidates were
sent to the concerned departments in the month of October,
2018 and the appointment process is already complete. The
petitioner having reservation category general (01) and disabled
(O.H.) secured 820 marks, merit serial no. 1032, could not be
finally declared successful, since the vacancy of the Rural
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2018 dt.23-06-2026
8/38
Development Officer, against which the private respondent no.
07 has been selected, was earmarked for the female disabled
candidate of B.C.L. (06) category. This fact would be evident
from the requisition letter bearing letter no. 189040 dated
20.06.2014 of the Rural Development Department. The
authorities of the BPSC have completed the process of
selection/recommendation on the basis of the resolution of the
State Government dated 05.01.2007. Further, 18 vacancies were
calculated for disabled category candidates, out of 736 reported
vacancies, since the vacancies of Police Service (Bihar Police
Service, Dy. S.P. Vigilance and Deputy Commandant) were not
included in calculation of posts, in view of the conditions
prescribed in the recruitment rule, which envisaged that “ A
candidate must be fit physically and mentally and free from any
physical defect likely to interfere with the efficient performance
of duties of a member of police service”. Six vacancies were
admissible for each disabled category candidates i.e. visually
impaired, deaf and dumb and orthopedically handicapped
respectively, out of the 18 vacancies for disabled category
candidates. The petitioner belongs to O.H. disabled category
having 820 marks, merit position 1032, but he was not finally
selected, since 02 vacancies out of 22 vacancies of the Rural
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2018 dt.23-06-2026
9/38
Development Officer was earmarked for BCL (06) and out of
these 02 vacancies, 01 last remaining vacancy was earmarked
for female disabled candidate of BCL category. Since the
vacancies earmarked for the disabled candidates were not
available in the category, therefore, the petitioner, although
placed at merit position 1032, along with one another candidate
namely Kumar Nirbhay (merit position 997) has not been
recommended for selection. Further two persons namely Vikram
Kumar and Umesh Kumar Das belongs to SC category and they
have been selected against the vacancies of SC category
candidates for the respective services/posts. The petitioner who
is a candidate of general category, disabled cannot claim
selection against the vacancies of the reserved category,
although he has secured 820 marks, which is lesser than the cut-
off marks of general category i.e. 848 marks. It has further been
mentioned that the petitioner has taken a calculated risk by
appearing in the examination, having not been selected, cannot
challenge the same in view of the judicial pronouncement of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as well as this Hon’ble Court.
6. A rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed on behalf
of the BPSC, has been filed by the petitioner, wherein it has
been stated that out of the 746 posts, which were advertised, 341
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2018 dt.23-06-2026
10/38
posts was for general category candidates, 117 for SC category
candidates, 12 for ST category candidates, 128 for EBC
category candidates, 85 for BC category candidates and 23 for
BCL category candidates. On the date of advertisement, 3%
reservation was existing for handicapped persons, as per the
Equal Opportunity Right Protection and Completion Act, 1945,
therefore, the handicapped persons were entitled to be given
their reserved quota against their category i.e. General, SC, ST,
EBC, BC, and BCL. The 3% reservation has to be divided for
all the three categores i.e. 1% for O.H. category, 1% for blind
candidates and 1% for deaf and dumb. The vacancy advertised
of any department cannot ignore 3% reservation for
handicapped candidate and as such, the petitioner who is
orthopedically handicapped, is entitled to be appointed against
22 vacancies, wherein 8 posts should have been meant for
orthopedically handicapped, 7 posts for deaf & dumb and 7
posts for blind candidates. The petitioner is not challenging the
procedure of selection, relating to advertisement, rather he is
claiming his appointment against the disabled quota, as per the
reservation policy, existing on the date of advertisement. He
further submits that only 6 candidates have been selected and
given the benefit of O.H. category, instead of 7 candidates and
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2018 dt.23-06-2026
11/38
as per the reservation policy dated 05.01.2007, 3% reservation
was required to be given horizontally for the disabled category
candidates, which has not been followed by the department.
7. A Supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf
of the petitioner wherein it has been stated that he came to know
that although the petitioner has secured 820 marks, but the
respondent no. 7 who has got 9 marks less than the petitioner,
has been finally selected, only on the ground that the vacancy of
Rural Development Officer, against which the respondent no. 07
has been selected, was earmarked for the female disabled
candidate of BCL category, although as per the advertisement,
no such vacancy was earmarked for the female disabled
candidate. It has further been stated that as per the resolution of
the State Government dated 01.02.2007, which states that
selection of the candidates of person with disability will be
based on general category, which clearly states that there should
be no reservation within reservation, for the persons with
disability category. It has further been stated that as per the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in
(2017) 3 SCC 504 (Union of India and Ors. Vs. M.
Selvakumar and another), wherein it has been observed that
physically handicapped category is a category in itself and the
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2018 dt.23-06-2026
12/38
persons who are physically handicapped have to be treated alike
in extending the relaxation and concession, regardless of the fact
that whether they belong to a general category or OBC category.
He further submits that similarly as per the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2007) 8 SCC 621
(Mahesh Gupta and Ors. Vs. Yashwant Kumar Ahirwar
and Ors.) it has been held that a disabled is a disabled and
therefore, the question of making further reservation on the
basis of caste, creed, and religion, would ordinarily not arise. It
has further been observed that the disabled are themselves a
special class and to that extent their further classification may
not be justified. As per the resolution of the State Government,
it is clear that, if any service deemed to be not appropriate for
P.W.D. candidates, then the same should be compensated from
another service, equivalent to that service (in which reservation
is not permitted to PWD candidates) in which reservation is
permitted. Therefore, the respondents were duty-bound to select
22 persons, as per the provisions contained in Persons with
Disabilities Act.
8. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
private respondent no. 07, wherein it has been stated that the
respondent no. 07 being eligible, submitted her application,
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2018 dt.23-06-2026
13/38
pursuant to the advertisement issued by the BPSC for 56th to
59th common Combined Competitive Examination and after
going through the selection process, was selected as a female
disabled candidate of BCL (06) category, pursuant to the
requisition for vacancy to the post of Rural Development
Officer, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna. The appointment of the respondent no. 07 has been made
as a BCL category candidate, which was earmarked in view of
letter dated 20.06.2014 of the Rural Development Department,
therefore, the appointment of the respondent no. 07 has been
made as per the vacancy, requisition for advertisement as well as
the eligibility of the candidate as a BCL category candidate,
therefore, there is no infirmity in selection of the respondent no.
07. After final selection and recommendation, she has been
appointed as a trainee Rural Development Officer in Bhojpur
District, vide memo no. 402929 dated 24.12.2018 and
subsequently, has been transferred and posted at different place.
9. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
Rural Development Department, wherein it has been stated that
vide letter no. 3694 dated 05.04.2011, the department sent
requisition for filling 534 posts of Rural Development Officer in
the pay-scale of Rs. 9300-34800/- with grade pay of Rs. 4200/-
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2018 dt.23-06-2026
14/38
after obtaining/clearance of roaster point against each category.
Again vide letter no. 135127 dated 11.01.2013, the department
sent requisition for appointment of 534 posts of Rural
Development Officer to the Bihar Public Service Commission,
after obtaining clearance of roaster point as per the guidelines of
the General Administration Department as well as the under the
provisions of the Rural Development Service Cadre Rules,
2010. The BPSC conducted examination for 53rd to 55th
Combined Competitive Examination and results were also
published wherein recommendation was made for 533
candidates for appointment against the post of Rural
Development Officer. Altogether 267 candidates were
recommended in general category, 86 in SC category, 5 in ST
category, 96 in MBC category, 64 in BC category and 16 posts
in BC (woman category). It was mentioned by the BPSC that
due to non-availability of the candidate under disabled quota
(O.H.) of BC (W) category, one posts remained vacant. Finally,
due to non-joining and other reasons 21 posts of Rural
Development Officer remained vacant, which did not include
one post of BC (W) of disabled (O.H) quota. Subsequently, vide
letter dated 29.04.2014, again requisition for filing 21 posts of
Rural Development Officer was sent to the BPSC, for filling the
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2018 dt.23-06-2026
15/38
same through 56th to 59th Combined Competitive Examination.
Subsequently, vide letter dated 03.06.2014, the BPSC requested
the department to send the requisition in prescribed format.
Accordingly, vide letter dated 20.06.2014, the department sent
requisition for 22 posts, including one post of BC (W) category
of disabled O.H. category candidate. After final publication of
the result, the BPSC recommended candidate for all the 22
posts, including one post for BC (W) category candidate.
Pursuant thereto, all the 22 candidates, including respondent
no.-07, who has been recommended under the BCL disability
O.H. category candidate, have been appointed on the post of
Rural Development Officer.
10. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
General Administration Department, pursuant to the order dated
24.07.2025, passed in this writ petition, whereby on the request
made by the petitioner, who has appeared in person, to implead
the Principal Secretary, General Administration Department,
Government of Bihar as respondent no.08. In the counter
affidavit, it has been stated that requisition was sent for 534
posts of Rural Development Officer for 53rd to 55th Bihar
Competitive Examination, to be conducted by the BPSC. In the
said advertisement the 03% reservation for virtually impaired,
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2018 dt.23-06-2026
16/38
deaf & dumb and orthopedically handicapped was not made
available to the BPSC. After rectification, the same was again
sent and 533 successful candidates were recommended by the
BPSC, however, due to non-availability of suitable candidate,
one post for BC (W) category under disabled category was not
filled up. It has further been stated that vide letter no. 14428
dated 05.8.2025 the General Administration Department found
it to be anomaly, in terms of resolution contained in memo no.
62 dated 05.01.2007. It has further been stated that as per the
provision for 3% reservation for disabled candidate, only 15
disabled candidates were recommended to the Rural
Development Department and due to non-availability of one
candidate in the disabled category O.H. seat remained vacant.
Subsequently, requisition was sent for 22 posts in the Rural
Development Department for the 56th to 59th Competitive
Examination. Further, so far the petitioner is concerned, he has
obtained 820 marks, while respondent no. 07 has obtained 811
marks and in this context the BPSC has clarified to the
department that in between the petitioner and the Respondent
no. 07 in the joint merit list of the candidates of the (O.H.)
category the following candidates are there:-
SL. Name Roll No. Merit Total Reservation
No. No. Marks Category
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2018 dt.23-06-2026
17/38
1 Om 277260 1033 820 01 (O.H.)
Prakash
Pandey
2 Pankaj Kumar 204482 1126 814 01 (O.H.)
Jha
11. The BPSC exclusively reported that apart from
the above, in the merit list the petitioner and one Kumar
Nirbhay Roll no. 271165, category O.H. had obtained 822,
marks has also not been selected. It has further been stated that
the department has the responsibility to make rules and
regulations for providing the benefit of reservation to the
persons who are in need, but it has to be implemented by the
concerned department/institution dealing with the subject. It has
further been mentioned that from the report of the BPSC, it is
clear that Bihar Public Service Commission made a flawed
report vide letter no. 152 dated 05.09.2013/11.09.2013 with its
recommendation, which was contrary to the provisions of the
resolution contained in memo no. 62 dated 05.01.2007, which
caused the present discrepancies. It has further been mentioned
that as per the clarification submitted by the BPSC, in WBC
category, there was one vacancy, which was reserved for
disabled woman and against that post, the respondent no. 07 has
been appointed. The petitioner despite having higher marks,
could not be selected. It has further been mentioned that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2018 dt.23-06-2026
18/38
BPSC has further clarified, that vide letter no. 4451568 dated
08.08.2025 of the Rural Development Department, the BPSC
has been informed that requisition for total 399 posts of Rural
Development Officer have been sent for 70th joint Competitive
Examination, but due to different reasons, at present 6 posts of
basic grade of Rural Development Officers are lying vacant. As
per the reservation category, 02 posts are for unreserved
category candidates, 01 for SC, 01 for EBC and 2 for WBC
candidate.
12. A reply to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of
the Respondent no. 08 has been filed by the petitioner in person,
wherein it has been mentioned that the counter affidavit dated
27.08.2025 is not in consonance with the order dated
01.05.2025 passed in this case, wherein it has categorically been
stated that in view of the judgment dated 03.12.2013 passed in
C.W.J.C. No. 19127 of 2013, in the category of handicapped
there cannot be any other division whether a candidate belongs
to Extremely Backward-Class Category or General Category
and therefore, the reservation given to the respondent no. 07
under BCL category is against the established law and is in
violation of the order passed by the this Hon’ble Court. It has
further been stated that in view of the judgment of this Hon’ble
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2018 dt.23-06-2026
19/38
Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, any post
under the category of orthopedically handicapped cannot be
reserved or kept backlog on the basis of the caste and creed. It
has further been stated that 4 candidates were not selected in the
category of physically handicapped, in complete violation of the
provisions of the State Government issued vide resolution dated
05.01.2007, which clearly states that the number of seats cannot
be reduced under handicapped category, against the quota of 3%
reservation and if any post is not fit/suitable to the
handicapped ,then equivalent other post has to be given. The
stand of the BPSC that 1 post of Rural Development Officer for
orthopedically handicapped was backlog for BCL candidate, is
against the established provision and in violation of the orders
passed by this Hon’ble Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. Since no candidate was selected in orthopedically
handicapped category on the basis of caste and creed for the 53 rd
to 55th Examination, therefore it was not justified to keep one
post of Rural Development Officer towards backlog vacancy for
BCL under Orthopedically handicapped category. Further in the
notification/advertisement for 56th to 59th BPSC combined
examination, it was not mentioned that any post has been kept
reserved for BCL candidate, in the physically handicapped
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2018 dt.23-06-2026
20/38
category. Further so far the contention of the BPSC that 01
candidate, who has secured more marks than the petitioner is
concerned, there might be possibility that he does not fulfill the
eligibility criteria and further he did not come before this
Hon’ble Court or raised any grievance, that despite him
obtaining 822 marks, he has not been selected. It has been
stated that the petitioner has secured 820 marks and the last
selected candidate in the orthopedically handicapped category
had obtained 811 marks, therefore, the petitioner should have
been appointed. So far the question of the candidate having
secured 822 marks is concerned, he has not come forward to
raise his grievance, however, in no circumstance a candidate
securing higher marks has not been selected and a candidate
with lower marks has been selected.
Submission of the Petitioner in Person
13. The petitioner who is appearing in person submits
that despite the fact that he got 820 marks but even then he has
not been selected, whereas the respondent no.07, who has got
811, marks has been finally selected, which is in complete
violation of the provisions contained in Articles 14, 16 and 21 of
the Constitution of India. He submits that the action of the
respondent authorities is in complete violation of the provisions
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2018 dt.23-06-2026
21/38
contained in the Constitution of India as well as the persons
with Disabilities Act. He further submits that even the 3% quota,
as per the provisions contained in persons with Disabilities Act,
has not been given in as much as that out of 736 vacancies, 22
vacancies should have been reserved for persons with
Disabilities Act, however, in the present case, only 18
candidates have been selected in the disabled quota. He submits
that the action of the respondent authorities is contrary to the
resolution of the State Government dated 05.01.2007.
14. The petitioner in person submits that since he has
secured more marks than the last selected candidate in his
category, he was fit to be selected, since, there cannot be
reservation within reservation and this has been declared by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as well as this Hon’ble Court
and which is also clear from the gazette notification of the State
Government dated 05.01.2007. He further submits that 4 lesser
candidates have been selected in the disabled category, since
only 18 candidates have been recommended, instead of 22
candidates and as per the statement made by the Bihar Public
Service Commission in their counter affidavit, it is clear that no
reservation has been provided in the Bihar Police Service or
Vigilance Department. However, in view of the circular of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2018 dt.23-06-2026
22/38
State Government dated 05.01.2007, if no reservation has been
provided in the Bihar Police Service, then in other services, the
same should have been provided to compensate the persons with
disabilities.
15. The petitioner in person further submits that
although 01 candidate namely Kumar Nirbhay has secured
higher marks than the petitioner, although he has not been
selected, and has not come forward to ventilate his grievance,
even then he can be selected, in place the respondent no. 07,
who has admittedly got lesser marks than the petitioner and said
Kumar Nirbhay. Further, the Rural Development Department
has informed the BPSC vide letter their dated 08.08.2025 that 6
posts of Rural Development Officer are lying vacant and
therefore, the petitioner can be appointed on the said post.
Submission on behalf of the BPSC
16. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the
Bihar Public Service Commission submits that the BPSC being
a recruiting agency, acts upon the requisition forwarded by the
respective departments. As per the requisition dated 20.06.2014
of the Rural Development Department for 22 posts of Rural
Development Officer, 01 post was earmarked for disabled
candidate belonging to the BCL category and since the
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2018 dt.23-06-2026
23/38
petitioner is a male candidate, belonging to the general category
orthopedically disabled, he cannot lay his claim on the vacancy
specifically earmarked for female candidate of the BCL
category by the requisitioning department. He further submits
that the Commissions stand is neither arbitrary nor targeted
against the petitioner. One another candidate namely Shri
Kumar Nirbhay merit list serial no. 997, who secured 822 marks
was also not selected for the same reasons i.e. due to non-
availability of vacancy in the category. The petitioner was not
even within the zone of consideration on his own merit, since
the cut-off marks for general category was 848 and the
petitioner secured 820 marks, therefore, he failed to qualify on
merits. So far the contention of the petitioner that 22 vacancies
ought to have been reserved for the disabled category candidates
instead of 18, is concerned, the same is incorrect and flawed. As
per the advertisement, which was for 736 posts across 22
services, 135 posts were for police service, which are exempted
from disabled category candidates, therefore, 3% statutory
reservation for the disabled candidate was calculated on the
remaining 601 posts and 3% of the said 601 posts comes to 18
posts. Therefore, 18 posts were correctly and lawfully
earmarked for the disabled category candidate as per the rules.
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2018 dt.23-06-2026
24/38
Since, the petitioner did not meet the general category cut-off
and the sole post in the Rural Development Department for
disabled candidate was reserved for BCL female, therefore, one
another candidate in the O.H, category, having secured higher
marks than the petitioner, has not been selected and the 3%
disability quota has been wrongly calculated by the petitioner.
Therefore, the appointment of the respondent no. 07 is in terms
of the provisions of the advertisement and in terms of the
existing rules.
Submission on Behalf of Private Respondent No. 07
17. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 07
submits that the respondent no. 07 being eligible, submitted her
application and after going through all the processes, she was
recommended for appointment as Rural Development Officer in
the Rural Development Department under the BCL (06)
category which was earmarked, while sending requisition by the
Rural Development Department in 2014. Therefore, the
selection of the respondent no. 07 has been made as per the
vacancy, requisition for advertisement as well as eligibility of
the candidate as a female disabled category candidate of the
BCL. That out of total 22 posts of Rural Development Officer
under the Rural Development Department, for which requisition
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2018 dt.23-06-2026
25/38
was sent, 12 posts were to be filled up from unreserved category
candidates, 01 from SC, 4 from EBC, 3 from BC and 2 from
BCL, out of which 01 was reserved for BCL (O.H.) candidate.
After appointment, the respondent no. 07 has already joined and
is working. Further, the petitioner is a general category
candidate in the disabled quota male and as such he cannot be
equated with the post earmarked for BCL (disabled category
candidate). The selection has been made as per the terms and
conditions of the advertisement, as well as by giving horizontal
and vertical reservation and after following the roaster. Further,
01 candidate having higher marks than the petitioner has also
not been selected, since no post was available under the (O.H.)
category.
Case Law Relied By The Petitioner
18. The petitioner in person refers to and relies on a
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in
(2017) 3 SCC 504 (Union of India and others Vs. M.
Selvakumar and another), wherein in paragraph nos. 22 and
23, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-
22. Article 16 of the Constitution provides
for equality of opportunity in matters of
public employment. The State in terms of
Article 16 of the Constitution provides two
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2018 dt.23-06-2026
26/38
types of reservations i.e. a vertical or social
reservation as provided for in Article 16
clause (4) and horizontal reservation which
is referable to Article 16 clause (1). Special
reservation in favour of physically
handicapped, women, etc. under Article
16(1) or 15(3) of the Constitution are the
instances of horizontal reservation.
23. A nine-Judge Bench in Indra Sawhney
v.Union of India [Indra Sawhney v. Union of
India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : 1992 SCC
(L&S) Supp 1] had elaborately considered
both the concepts of reservation. In para 812
of the said judgment, Justice B.P. Jeevan
Reddy, has referred to both the types of
reservations. It was held that horizontal
reservations cut across the vertical
reservation. The following was stated : (SCC
pp. 735-36)
“812. … 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2018 dt.23-06-2026
27/38
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.”
19. The petitioner in person further refers to and
relies on a judgment of the Hon’ble Suprme Court of India
reported in (2007) 8 SCC 621 (Mahesh Gupta and Ors. Vs.
Yashwant Kumar Ahirwar and Ors.), wherein in paragraph
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2018 dt.23-06-2026
28/38
nos, 10 to 14, the Hon’ble Suprme Court has held as follows:
“10. The State in terms of Article 16 of the
Constitution of India may make two types of
reservations—vertical and horizontal.
Article 16(4) provides for vertical
reservation; whereas Clause (1) of Article 16
provides for horizontal reservation.
11. The State adopted a policy decision for
filling up the reserved posts for handicapped
persons. A special drive was to be launched
therefor. The circular letter was issued only
for the said purpose. A bare perusal of the
said Circular Letter dated 29-3-1993 would
clearly show that the State had made 3%
reservation for blinds and 2% for other
physically handicapped persons. Such a
reservation falling within Clause (1) of
Article 16 of the Constitution has nothing to
do with the object and purport sought to be
achieved by reason of Clause (4) thereof.
12. Disability has drawn the attention of the
worldwide community. India is a signatory
to various international treaties and
conventions. The State, therefore, took a
policy decision to have horizontal
reservation with a view to fulfil its
constitutional object as also its commitment
to the international community. A disabled is
a disabled. The question of making any
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2018 dt.23-06-2026
29/38
further reservation on the basis of caste,
creed or religion ordinarily may not arise.
They constitute a special class. The
advertisement, however, failed to mention in
regard to the reservation for handicapped
persons at the outset, but, as noticed
hereinbefore, the vacant posts were required
to be filled up for two categories of
candidates; one for Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe candidates and other for
handicapped candidates. Handicapped
candidates have not been further classified
as belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
Tribes and general category candidates.
13. It is a travesty of justice that despite the
State clarified its own position in its order
dated 1-1-2004 and stated that the posts
were vacant under the handicapped quota
but it completely turned turtle and took a
diagonally opposite stand when a contempt
petition was filed. In its reply in the said
proceedings, reference was made to the
aforementioned order dated 1-1-2004 but
within a short time viz. on 4-2-2004 it opined
on a presumption that as the word
“handicapped” was not mentioned in the
heading of advertisement they were meant
only for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribe candidates. Rule of executive
construction was given a complete go-by.
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2018 dt.23-06-2026
30/38
Reasonableness and fairness which is the
hallmark of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India was completely lost sight of. The
officers of the State behaved strangely. It
prevaricated its stand only because a
contempt proceeding was initiated. If the
State was eager to accommodate the writ
petitioner-respondent, it could have done so.
It did not take any measure in that behalf. It
chose to terminate the services of some of
the employees who had already been
appointed. Such a course could not have
been taken either in law or in equity. The
State is expected to have a constitutional
vision. It must give effect to the
constitutional mandate. Any act done by it
should be considered to have been effected
in the light of the provisions contained in
Part IV of the Constitution of India. The
State in terms of the provisions contained in
Part IV should have given effect to the
principles embodied in Article 39 of the
Constitution of India. Whereas a reasonable
reservation within the meaning of Article 16
of the Constitution of India should not
ordinarily exist (sic exceed), 50%, as has
been held by this Court in Indra Sawhney v.
Union of India [1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 :
1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1 : (1992) 22 ATC
385 : AIR 1993 SC 477] , reservation for
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2018 dt.23-06-2026
31/38
women or handicapped persons would not
come within the purview thereof.
14.Furthermore, when the decision was
taken, the Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995 (for short “the 1995
Act”) had come into force. In terms of the
1995 Act, the States were obligated to make
reservations for handicapped persons. The
State completely lost sight of its commitment
both under its own policy decision as also
the statutory provision.”
20. The petitioner in person further refers to and relies
on an unreported judgment of a learned Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court dated 03.12.2013 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 19127 of
2013 (Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.), wherein it
has been held as follows:-
“Besides hearing learned counsel for the
parties, I have also perused the materials
available on record. Fact remains that the
petitioner had claimed his candidature as
handicap candidate. In the category of
handicap, there can not be any other
division, whether a candidate belongs to
Extremely Backward Category or General
Category as also there can not be any
distinction amongst the candidates of
orthopedic handicap category. Orthopedic
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2018 dt.23-06-2026
32/38
handicap is one class and there can not be
any division in the same.”
Consideration and Analysis
21. Having heard the Petitioner in person, the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state, the Learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Bihar Public Service
Commission and after going through the documents, this court
finds that an advertisement was issued for 56th to 59th Combined
Preliminary Competitive Examinations for 22 services, having
total 746 vacancies, wherein in view of the circular of the State
Government contained in memo no. 62 dated 05.01.2007
relaxation of 10 years was given to the persons with disabilities
and they were required to obtain at least 32% marks in the
Preliminary test, to be eligible for further participation in the
selection. The petitioner being eligible, submitted his
application before the cut-off date. After going through the
process prescribed i.e. Preliminary test and the Mains
examination, the Petitioner was called for Interview on
08.05.2018. The petitioner appeared in the said Interview and
the final result was published on 18.08.2018, wherein altogether
736 candidates were declared successful, to be appointed in total
21 services. The name of the petitioner was not there in the list
of successful candidates, although he secured 820 marks. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2018 dt.23-06-2026
33/38
petitioner belongs to the Disability quota of Orthopaedics
(O.H.). The petitioner started making enquiry and came to know
that one Archana Kumari (Respondent no.7), who had obtained
the rank 1178 i.e. below the rank of the petitioner, has been
selected as Rural Development Officer in the category of
BCL/disabled/OH, in the Rural Development Department,
Government of Bihar. The petitioner filed an application under
the Right to Information Act and thereafter he came to know,
that the Respondent no.7 has got only 811 marks, even then she
has been selected. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ
petition, wherein he arrayed Archana Kumari as party
Respondent no.7. He prayed for quashing part of the result
published under the signature of the Joint Secretary-cum-
Examination Controller, B.P.S.C., Patna, by which the
Respondent no.7, whose name stands at serial no.22 under item
no.9, Rural Development Officer, in the final result, has been
declared as a selected candidate under the disabled O.H.
category, despite being at serial no.1178 in the final merit list,
against the advertisement for 56th two 59th Combined
Competitive Examination. Some other prayers were also there.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Bihar Public
Service Commission, wherein a stand has been taken that since
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2018 dt.23-06-2026
34/38
1 seat under the category of Backward Class Lady (BCL) in the
Disabled Category remained vacant, in absence of suitable
disabled candidate in the Rural Development Department, in
terms of the advertisement for 53rd to 55th Combined
Competitive Examination, therefore the same was carried
forward and was kept reserved for the BCL under the disabled
category of O.H. Therefore, the Respondent no.7, despite having
lesser marks, than the petitioner, has been selected under the
said category. Vide order dated 24.07.2025 passed in this case,
the Principal Secretary, General Administration Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna was impleaded as party Respondent
no.8 and was directed to file his counter affidavit. Subsequent
thereto a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of Respondent
no.8, wherein it has been categorically stated that the
Department makes certain rules and regulations to provide the
benefits of reservation to persons who are basically in need,
however, so far, the question of implementation is concerned,
the implementation has to be carried out by the concerned
institution dealing with the subject. It has further been stated
that after thorough examination, it is clear that the Bihar Public
Service Commission made a flawed report vide its letter no.152
dated 05.09.2013/11.09.2013 with the recommendation. It was
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2018 dt.23-06-2026
35/38
contrary to the provisions of Resolution contained in memo
no.62 dated 05.01.2007, which caused the discrepancy, for
which the Commission is accountable.
22. Further from the advertisement issued by the
Bihar Public Service Commission it would transpire that
although the vacancies for each category i.e. General, S.C., S.T.,
E.B.C., B.C. and B.C.L. were Compartmentalised, however the
vacancies for Disabled Category Candidates were not
compartmentalised. In the opinion of this court, the
advertisement itself was issued in teeth of the Judgement of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Saurabh Yadav &
Ors. VS The State of U.P. & Ors as reported in 2021 (4) SCC
542. Further the requisition which was sent by the Rural
Development Department, to the Special Secretary-cum-
Examination Controller, Bihar Public Service Commission vide
letter no.189040 dated 20.06.2014 contained the details of 22
Posts. Out of the said 22 Posts 12 Posts were unreserved, 01
Post was reserved for S.C. candidate, 04 Post was reserved for
S.T. category candidate, 03 Post was reserved for B.C. category
candidate, 01 Post was reserved for B.C.L. category candidate
and 01 Post was reserved for disabled category candidate
belonging to the B.C.L. category. However, the Bihar Public
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2018 dt.23-06-2026
36/38
Service Commission advertised 02 Post for B.C.L. category
candidate, which itself was contrary to the requisition sent by
the Rural Development Department, since no post was shown in
the advertisement for disabled category candidate. Further in
terms of paragraph no.54 of the Judgement of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Saurabh Yadav (Supra)
wherein, it has been categorically held that as follows:-
“54 Horizontal reservation on the other
hand, by their nature, are not inviolate pools
or carved in stone. They are premised on
their overlaps and are ‘interlocking’
reservations. As a sequel, they are to be
calculated concurrently and along with the
inviolate ‘vertical’ (or “social”) reservation
quotas, by application of the various steps
laid out with clarity in Paragraph 11 of
Justice Lalit’s Judgement. They cannot be
carried forward. The first rule that applies
for filling horizontal reservation quota is
one of adjustment, i.e. examining whether
on merit any of the horizontal categories are
adjusted in the merit list in the open
category and then, in the quota for such
horizontal category within the particular
specified/social reservation”.
23. From paragraph no.54 of the Judgement of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Saurabh Yadav
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2018 dt.23-06-2026
37/38
(Supra) it is clear that the horizontal reservation cannot be
carried forward. In the present case the 01 vacancy, which
remained unfilled and vacant in the 53rd to 55th Combined
Competitive Examination, in the B.C.L. disabled category, was
carried forward, which is in teeth of the Judgement of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Saurabh Yadav
(Supra) and which in the opinion of this court is not permissible.
The correct course would have been that the vacancy which
remained unfilled in the BCL O.H. category would have been
included in the advertisement for 56th to 59th combined
competitive examination in the O.H. category and the candidate
belonging to the said category would have been considered and
selected, as per his/her merit position in the merit list in the
O.H. category. In the present case no such exercise has been
carried out and the Post was kept reserved for BCL category
O.H. candidate and finally the respondent no.8, although, lower
in the merit list, was given the benefit of both the BCL and the
O.H. category, has been selected, which is contrary to the
Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Saurabh Yadav (Supra).
24. From the consideration made above, it is
directed that one vacancy meant for Disabled O.H. category
Patna High Court CWJC No.20547 of 2018 dt.23-06-2026
38/38
candidate is thus required to be reworked out and assessed by
the B.P.S.C., after considering all the eligible candidates
belonging to the said category and benefit of the same has to be
extended accordingly upon its final outcome/adjudication
making selection and recommendation in favour of such person.
Till then the Respondent no.7 would not be disturbed and her
selection and appointment shall be governed by such final
outcome upon re-assessment as directed above. The entire
exercise, as directed above, must be completed within a period
of 4 months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the
order.
25. With the aforementioned observations and
directions the present writ petition is disposed of.
26. Pending applications, if any, shall also stands
disposed of.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
krishnakant/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 07.04.2026
Uploading Date 23.06.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.