Shubham Vs Union of India and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Shubham Vs Union of India and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned advertisement dated 11.12.2018 reserving the posts of Junior Technician (Lab) for specially abled persons only in categories OA (one arm) and OL (one leg), to the exclusion of other disability categories, was consistent with the Government of India Reservation Policy dated 15.01.2018 and the identification of posts for persons with disabilities (including O.M. No.16-15/2010/DD.III dated 29.07.2013). +1 more

Court's answer

The Court expressly declined to comment on the question of reservation for a particular category of PWD; the legality of restricting the reserved posts to the OA (one arm) and OL (one leg) categories was left undetermined by this judgment.

Ratio / Principle

The petition stands disposed of on the sole ground that the petitioner has not qualified the written test; no consideration of his candidature arises on that account.

Key takeaways

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Oral single-judge decision (Jagmohan Bansal, J.), High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, CWP-4686-2019, decided 12.09.2025. The writ petition challenged the recruitment advertisement dated 11.12.2018 (Annexure P-1) for posts of Junior Technician (Lab), which reserved specially abled posts only in categories OA (one arm) and OL (one leg), allegedly in violation of the Government of India Reservation Policy dated 15.01.2018 (Annexure P-5); petitioner held a 75% disability certificate (Annexure P-4). Respondents defended the OA/OL-only earmarking on the basis of Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment O.M. No.16-15/2010/DD.III dated 29.07.2013, treating the post as identical (save nomenclature) to the identified post of Senior Laboratory Technologist, the Expert Committee's list being indicative and not exhaustive. An interim order of 22.02.2019 (notice of motion returnable 26.03.2019) had required one reserved post for disabled persons to be kept vacant meanwhile. Ultimately, the Court disposed of the petition WITHOUT COMMENTING on the question of reservation for a particular category of PWD, solely because the petitioner did not qualify the written test held on 27.04.2019 (result declared 01.05.2019). Pending application(s), if any, also disposed of. No precedent was cited or engaged; the substantive reservation-category question remains open in this judgment.

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ******

206 CWP-4686-2019 Date of Decision: 12.09.2025

SHUBHAM

...Petitioner

Vs.

UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER …Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner

Mr. Sudhir Nar, Sr. Panel Counsel for UOI

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

On 22.02.2019, the following order was passed by this

Court:-

“Inter alia contends that in violation of the Reservation Policy dated 15.01.2018 issued by the Government of India (Annexure P-5), respondents have invited applications for recruitment to the posts of Junior Technician (Lab) vide the impugned advertisement dated 11.12.2018 (Annexure P-1), by reserving the posts for specially abled, only in the Category of OA (one arm) and OL (one leg).

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner is a specially abled person suffering from 75% disability as reflected from certificate Annexure P-4. But only OA and OL are being given reservation benefit of disability.

Notice of motion, returnable for 26.03.2019.

In the meanwhile, one post in the reserved category

DEEPAK BISSYAN 2025.09.12 14:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-4686-2019

-2-

meant for disable person shall be kept vacant by the respondents.”

As per reply, the post of Junior Technician (Lab) under PWD Category is earmarked for PWD of Category One Leg or One Arm on the basis of instructions issued by Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment vide O.M. No.16-15/2010/DD.III dated 29.07.2013. The relevant extracts of the reply reads as:-

“That while identifying the list of various posts / jobs by the GOI, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment vide OM No. 16-15/2010/DD.III dated 29.07.2013 for PWD it has been provided that:

"The list of posts identified by the Expert Committee is only indicative and not exhaustive. If a post has duties and responsibilities similar to an identified post, that post should be construed to be identified. The Departments and the Public Sector Undertaking are free to identify more posts in their organizations, over and above, this list",

The post of Junior Technician (Lab) existing in the institute is a direct recruitment post. The government has not identified this post. It was found that the nature and functions of the post of Junior Technician (Lab) is identical to that of the post of Senior Laboratory Technologist identified by government vide said notification dated 29.07.2013, for granting reservation and concession to the persons with disabilities in respect to OA (One Arm) and OL (One Leg) category, but there is a variation in nomenclature in the post. Accordingly this institute, after considering the similarity of jobs description / nature of duties with that of post of Senior Lab. Technologist identified by Government, the post of Junior Technician (Lab) for the persons with disabilities for the category of OA (One Arm) and OL (One Leg) in the direct recruitment.

DEEPAK BISSYAN 2025.09.12 14:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-4686-2019

-3-

Thus the 03 posts shown reserved for PWD for the category of OA (One Arm) and OL (One Leg) are correctly shown strictly with reference to the government instructions on providing reservation to PWD.”

The respondent has further submitted that petitioner appeared in the written test held on 27.04.2019 and result was declared on 01.05.2019. He did not qualify the test, thus, there is no question to consider him for the post irrespective of reservation under particular category of PWD.

Without commenting on question of reservation for particular category of PWD, the petition stands disposed of as petitioner has not qualified written test.

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE

12.09.2025

Deepak DPA

Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

DEEPAK BISSYAN 2025.09.12 14:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Advertisement dated 11.12.2018 (Annexure P-1) inviting applications for recruitment to the posts of Junior Technician (Lab), reserving the specially abled posts only in the category of OA (one arm) and OL (one leg).¶14
11.12.2018
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's grievance recorded: despite the Government of India Reservation Policy dated 15.01.2018 (Annexure P-5), the advertisement reserved the specially abled posts only for categories OA (one arm) and OL (one leg).¶14
Prior proceeding
Petitioner stated to be a specially abled person suffering from 75% disability (certificate Annexure P-4); only OA and OL categories were being given reservation benefit.¶15
Prior proceeding
An order was passed by this Court on 22.02.2019 recording the above contention.¶12-13
Prior proceeding
Notice of motion issued on 22.02.2019, returnable for 26.03.2019.¶16
Prior proceeding
Interim direction: in the meanwhile, one post in the reserved category meant for disabled persons to be kept vacant by the respondents.¶21
Prior proceeding
Respondents' reply: the post of Junior Technician (Lab) under PWD Category earmarked for PWD of Category One Leg or One Arm on the basis of instructions issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (O.M. No.16-15/2010/DD.III dated 29.07.2013).¶22
Prior proceeding
Reply extract: the Expert Committee's list of identified posts is only indicative and not exhaustive; departments and public sector undertakings are free to identify more posts over and above the list.¶24
Prior proceeding
Reply extract: the nature and functions of the post of Junior Technician (Lab) found identical (bar nomenclature) to the post of Senior Laboratory Technologist identified by government vide notification dated 29.07.2013; accordingly the institute opened the post to PWD of OA (One Arm) and OL (One Leg) categories in direct recruitment.¶25
Prior proceeding
Reply extract: the three posts shown reserved for PWD (OA/OL categories) claimed to be correctly shown strictly with reference to the government instructions on reservation for PWD.¶29
Prior proceeding
Per respondents: petitioner appeared in the written test held on 27.04.2019; result declared 01.05.2019; he did not qualify the test.¶30