No Sub-Classification of Disability Allowed Based On Caste: Himachal Pradesh HC

In a decisive blow to executive arbitrariness in public employment, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that disability horizontal reservation cannot be sub-classified or reserved based on caste, reiterating that 'a disabled is a disabled'. Setting aside the state's decision to restrict a physical handicap quota post exclusively to Scheduled Caste candidates, the Court affirmed that persons with disabilities constitute a single unified class.

A single-judge bench of Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj was hearing a petition filed by a candidate seeking appointment to the post of Physical Education Teacher (P.E.T.) under the special recruitment drive for physically challenged persons.

Addressing the validity of subjecting horizontal disability reservations to vertical caste categories, the Court emphasized that introducing caste-based exclusions within disability quotas violates constitutional guarantees. The Court directed the respondents to offer appointment to the petitioner. The Court issued the following directions:

"Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the respondents-State is directed to offer appointment to the petitioner to the post of P.E.T. from the date when respondent No.5 has been offered the appointment w.e.f. 01.03.2008 with all consequential benefits, except monetary benefits, which would be notional. In case the respondents-State does not offer appointment to the petitioner within three months from today, he shall be granted the salary after expiry of three months from today."

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Since the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the ‘a disabled is a disabled’ and the question of making any further reservation on the basis of caste, creed or religion ordinarily may not arise, the action on the part of the respondents to subsequently reserve the post for Scheduled Caste category (hearing impaired) is illegal, arbitrary and against the mandate of law..."

While analyzing constitutional principles, the Court relied on Mahesh Gupta and others vs. Yashwant Kumar Ahirwar and others ( "AIR 2007 SC 3136": 2007 CaseBase(SC) 667) to underscore that horizontal reservations under Article 16 of the Constitution of India Clause (1) are distinct from vertical reservations under Clause (4), and disabled individuals cannot be further compartmentalized by caste.

Background:

The dispute arose after the State initiated a special recruitment drive to fill C&V Teacher posts, including Physical Education Teachers (P.E.T.), from amongst physically disabled persons in District Kullu. The petitioner, a hearing-impaired individual with 46% permanent disability belonging to the General category, participated in selection interviews. Initially evaluated highest in merit during the first interview round, he was denied appointment after the State conducted a subsequent interview and selected a candidate from another category, claiming the post was earmarked for Scheduled Caste (hearing impaired) candidates.

The petitioner challenged the selection on grounds of arbitrariness and illegal reservation logic. The State argued that the post fell under the SC/PH roster point and defended its candidate selection from outside the district based on state-wide employment requisitions.

Allowing the petition, the High Court held the State's action of reserving the disabled post for Scheduled Castes illegal and unconstitutional, directing the State to issue an appointment letter to the petitioner with retrospective consequential benefits on a notional basis.

Case Details:
Case No.: CWPOA No.165 of 2019
NeutralCitation: 2026:HHC:31275
Case Title: Hoshiyar Singh v. State of H.P. and others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Radhey Shyam Gautam, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Hemant Kumar Verma, Deputy Advocate General (for Respondents 1 to 4); Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate (for Respondent No.5).

Source: 2026 CaseBase(HP) 1811