Bombay High Court

BHUSHAN BHALCHANDRA APTEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SEC. AND OTHERS

Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: R G AVACHAT AJIT B KADETHANKAR

Holding

The Court held that the petitioner does not satisfy the mandatory minimum educational qualification and, having not challenged the recruitment rules, the petition cannot be granted.

Summary

The petitioner, an intellectually disabled individual certified at 55% disability, challenged the requirement of a minimum SSC (10th standard) qualification for a Class IV post advertised by the Maharashtra Government. He argued that this educational prerequisite was arbitrary and contravened the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, seeking permission to participate in the selection process despite not having the qualification. The State contended that the recruitment rules clearly stipulate the 10th standard as a mandatory criterion, which the petitioner does not satisfy. The Court observed that the educational requirement is a factual condition of the recruitment rules and that the petitioner had not contested the validity of those rules. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it. The dismissal was based on the petitioner’s failure to meet the prescribed qualification and his lack of a challenge to the recruitment regulations.

Issues considered

Whether the requirement of passing the SSC examination for Class IV posts is arbitrary and violative of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 for an intellectually disabled applicant.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to be allowed to participate in the selection process despite not meeting the stipulated educational qualification.

Legislation cited

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

Subjects

disability rights
educational qualification
SSC requirement
Class IV recruitment
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act
writ petition
civil appellate jurisdiction
recruitment rules

Judgment

37-WP-11447-2025.doc

Shailaja

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.11447 OF 2025

Bhushan Bhalchandra Apte ] Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and others ] Respondents
…..
Mr. Chaitanya S. Kulkarni, for Petitioner.

Mr. Siddheshwar B. Kalel, A.G.P, for Respondent – State.
…..
CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT AND
AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.

DATE : 8th JANUARY, 2026.

ORAL ORDER: [PER AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]:

1. Heard Mr. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.

Kalel, learned A.G.P, for respondent – State. We have heard this petition

for final disposal by consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner suffers intellectual disability certified by the

Competent Medical Authority at the rate 55%.

3. The requisite qualification of SSC standard for the post of Class IV

category contained in the Advertisement No.3149 of 2025 issued by the

1 of 3
SHAILAJA Digitally signed by SHAILAJA
SHRIKANT HALKUDE
SHRIKANT Date: 2026.01.09 10:14:22
HALKUDE +0530
37-WP-11447-2025.doc

Medical Education and Drugs Department, Government of Maharashtra

is the subject matter of the present petition.

4. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner does not have requisite

educational qualification i.e the petitioner has not passed SSC standard.

The sum and substance of the learned Counsel for the petitioner’s

argument is that employing the minimum education qualification of

holding SSC certificate is an arbitrary condition. Mr. Kulkarni, learned

Counsel for the petitioner would submit that although some reservation is

provided for the disabled persons in the recruitment process, the

candidates specially abled like the petitioner i.e intellectually disabled can

even not passed SSC examination. He would further submit that

condition of passing SSC examination for Class IV posts frustrates the

very object of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. As such,

he challenges the educational qualification in the subject matter

advertisement and seeks direction to the respondents to allow the

petitioner to participate in the selection process.

5. To counter, Mr. Kalel, learned A.G.P would submit that

Recruitment Rules applicable to subject matter selection process provide

that the minimum educational qualification to participate in the selection

2 of 3
37-WP-11447-2025.doc

process is 10th standard for the Class IV posts to which learned Counsel

for the petitioner is ad idem. He further submits that the petitioner was

not educationally qualified to participate in the selection process.

6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length. We are

satisfied that it is an admitted position that minimum educational

qualification to participate in the selection process is 10 th standard.

Admittedly, the petitioner does not qualify the requisite educational

qualification so enumerated in the recruitment process. It is also matter of

fact that the petitioner has not challenged the Recruitment Rules, which

deprived him from competing the selection process. For want of such

challenge, the prayers in the petition can not be granted.

7. In view of this, the prayers fall short on merits, hence, it stands

dismissed.

[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.] [ R.G. AVACHAT J.]

3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…