Allahabad High Court
DHARAMVEER SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The petition is disposed of in accordance with the judgment in Neetu Kumar & 21 others, directing the respondents to comply with its directions for appointment or creation of posts for eligible disabled candidates.
Summary
The petitioner, Dharamveer Singh, challenged a Government Order dated 30.07.2021 that excluded candidates with locomotor disability from eligibility for the post of Lekhpal, arguing that his candidature was rejected on that ground. He contended that a subsequent Government Order dated 30.09.2024 had extended eligibility to include locomotor disability and relied on the Division Bench judgment in Neetu Kumar & 21 others v. Union of India (Writ A No. 18445 of 2023) which directed reasonable accommodation for such candidates. The respondents acknowledged the earlier judgment but opposed the writ, asserting no further relief was required. The Court observed that the Neetu Kumar judgment remains binding and has not been challenged before the Supreme Court. Consequently, the petition was disposed of, directing the respondents to implement the directions of the Neetu Kumar case regarding appointment or creation of supernumerary posts for eligible disabled candidates.
Issues considered
- Whether the Government Order dated 30.07.2021 that excludes locomotor disability from consideration for the post of Lekhpal is legally valid.
- Whether the later Government Order dated 30.09.2024 supersedes the earlier order and mandates inclusion of locomotor disability candidates.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to appointment or reasonable accommodation as per the directions in Neetu Kumar & 21 others v. Union of India.
Subjects
- disability rights
- reasonable accommodation
- government order
- appointment
- Lekhpal
- equal opportunity
- writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 15981 of 2026
Dharamveer Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union Of India And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Man Bahadur Singh, Sandeep Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Siddharth Singhal
Court No. - 33
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Heard Shri Man Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri
Anshul Sachan, Advocate holding brief of Shri Purnendu Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for respondent no. 1, Shri Siddharth Singhal, learned
counsel for respondent no. 5 and perused the record.
2. This petition has been filed for the following relief:
"A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned Government Order dated 30.07.2021 in so far as it excludes all
locomotor disability from consideration for the post of Lekhpal.
II. A writ, order or direction of suitable nature commanding the
respondent No. 4 for conduct document verification of the petitioner, who
has secured merit position of his own merit in the vertical categories of
Other Backward Class without requiring him to confirm to the
requirement of the impugned Government Order dated 30.07.2021 Issued
by the State Government."
3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that candidature
of the petitioner has been rejected for the post of Lekhpal as the petitioner
was having locomotor disability which is not covered under the
Government Order dated 30.07.2021. It has been further submitted that
later on by another Government Order dated 30.09.2024, locomotor
disability has been covered and this question has been considered by the
Division Bench of this Court in case of Neetu Kumar and 21 others v.
Union of India and 4 others, passed in Writ A No. 18445 of 2023,
WRIA No. 15981 of 2026
2
decided on 01.09.2026, wherein, this Court has directed as follows:
"In the circumstances we direct that in event vacant posts exist to fulfill
1% of aggregate 8085 posts then, those of petitioners who were found
eligible are to be given appointment by way of reasonable
accommodation. Otherwise, supernumerary posts are to be created for
such accommodation. Petitioners will communicate certified copy of this
order to respondent no. 4, who we are told is the appointing authority.
There be compliance within six weeks thereafter."
4. Shri Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel for the respondent though
opposed the writ petition but could not deny that this Court in case of
Neetu Kumar and others (Supra) has directed for consideration and the
said order has yet not been challenged before the Supreme Court.
5. In view of these facts, this writ petition stands disposed of in terms of
judgment passed in case of Neetu Kumar and others (Supra) and the
respondents are directed to act accordingly.
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
September 30, 2026
Ved Prakash
Digitally signed by :-
VED PRAKASH SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…