The Supreme Court has held that the percentage of disability cannot be treated as determinative of a candidate’s capability or suitability for public employment, underlining that the State carries a positive obligation to ensure equal opportunity and provide reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities.. Disability percentage can’t determine capability for public employment: Supreme Court. A bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta made the observation while ordering the Himachal Pradesh government to appoint a lawyer with 90% permanent locomotor disability as an assistant district attorney (ADA), setting aside the state’s decision to deny him the post despite his success in the selection process.. The court also imposed costs of ₹5 lakh on the state, noting that the candidate, Prabhu Kumar, had been “unjustly denied appointment” despite being meritorious and was forced to undergo prolonged litigation.. “The percentage of disability, by itself, cannot be treated as determinative of a candidate’s capability or suitability for public employment,” held the bench in a judgment released on Tuesday, emphasising that the statutory framework under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016 mandates the State to ensure equal opportunity and reasonable accommodation.. Kumar, a practising advocate since 2015, had applied for the ADA post pursuant to a 2018 advertisement issued by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission. While he cleared the written examination and interview, and was recommended for appointment, the state refused to appoint him on the ground that his disability — assessed at 90% — exceeded the prescribed upper limit of 60% mentioned in the recruitment notification.. The Supreme Court found this stipulation fundamentally flawed. It held that while the RPwD Act defines a minimum threshold of 40% disability for availing reservation benefits, it does not permit the State to impose an upper ceiling that excludes candidates with higher degrees of disability. By prescribing a 60% cap, the state had effectively “rewritten the statutory definition” to the detriment of those the law seeks to protect, the court observed.. The bench was categorical that such a restriction had no rational nexus with the duties of an assistant district attorney, which primarily require legal acumen, analytical ability and mental agility rather than physical capacity. It also noted that Kumar had been practising law for nearly a decade without impediment, demonstrating that a higher degree of disability did not compromise professional competence.. In a significant reiteration of disability rights jurisprudence, the court stressed that the principle of “reasonable accommodation” lies at the heart of the 2016 law and cannot be ignored by administrative authorities. It held that the State must make “necessary and appropriate modifications” to ensure that persons with disabilities can enjoy their rights on an
