Disability rights deserve same weight as fundamental rights: Punjab and Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that disability rights must be treated with the same seriousness as fundamental rights.

The Bench made it clear that equality in public employment is meaningless unless the State actively implements statutory reservations instead of allowing them to “wither by bureaucratic indifference".

Justice Sandeep Moudgil asserted the State’s duty toward the specially-abled was a constitutional obligation, not an act of benevolence.

The assertion came as the Bench allowed a petition filed by a visually impaired employee of the Haryana Forest Department, initially appointed as a gardener in June 1998.

He was seeking directions to Haryana and other respondents to promote him to Forest Guard from 2003 and Forester from 2013 under the three percent physically handicapped quota.

Broadening the scope beyond the individual case, the Bench asserted: "The measure of a compassionate State is not how it treats the strong, but how it uplifts those whom circumstance has made vulnerable".

Calling equality “a human commitment, not a mechanical formula”, Justice Moudgil asserted the law “must bend toward inclusion, lest the specially-abled citizen be left standing outside the doors of opportunity to which the Constitution has already given him a key".

Justice Moudgil asserted that Article 16 guaranteed not just equal opportunity in public employment but an enforceable right to be considered for promotion. Where a statutory reservation existed, the authorities were constitutionally bound to implement it.

Justice Moudgil also admonished the State for the omission of computing disability-quota vacancies, maintaining a reservation roster, and carrying out the exercise during the petitioner’s years of eligibility.

The Court added this lapse resulted in a “clear breach” of Articles 14 and 16. Raising the bar for the disability-rights regime, the Bench added: “The right to be free from disability-based discrimination must be regarded with the same seriousness and protection as a fundamental right.”

The Bench further added that the framework of the law “seeks to correct patterns of exclusion by obligating the State to create conditions that allow specially-abled persons to thrive".

Regarding the State’s defense that the petitioner—a visually-impaired employee of the Haryana Forest Department— did not meet physical standards or training requirements, the Court said such an exclusion was legally untenable.

A post could be taken out of reservation only through a notified exemption supported by reasons. “No such notification has been produced,” the Court said, adding that a pending proposal could not replace a mandatory statutory exemption.

In its absence, the reservation continued to apply. Before concluding the case, Justice Moudgil held the petitioner entitled to promotion under the three percent disability quota—first as Forest Guard with effect from 2003 and then as Forester from 2013—with notional seniority, pay fixation, and all consequential benefits.

Financial arrears will carry 6% annual interest. The State was given four weeks to comply.