Reservation Is Vacancy-Based; Identification Is Post-Based: Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Of 100% Visually Impaired Candidates Against Railway Recruitment

“Inclusivity Cannot Override Operational Safety In Railways” – Today, Delhi High Court dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by 100% visually impaired candidates challenging their exclusion from certain posts in Railway recruitment under Central Employment Notification (CEN) 01/2019. The Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul clarified the legal distinction between reservation under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act, 2016 and identification of posts under Section 33.

The Court ruled, “Reservation is vacancy-based; identification is post-based. Both exercises are statutorily distinct and legally permissible”, emphasizing that operational safety in Railways cannot be compromised to accommodate disabilities unsuitable for specific job functions.

The petitioners, all 100% visually impaired candidates, had applied for posts advertised by Western Railway under CEN 01/2019. Despite securing marks above the cutoff for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) under the visual impairment (VI) quota, they were not selected for posts identified as suitable only for candidates with low vision (LV) but not for those who were completely blind.

Aggrieved, they approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) challenging the recruitment process, which dismissed their petitions on 16th July 2024. The Tribunal upheld the Railway's decision, citing safety concerns related to operational posts. The petitioners then filed the present writ petitions before the Delhi High Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether bifurcating posts based on 'blindness' and 'low vision' within the 1% VI reservation violates Sections 33 and 34 of the RPWD Act?

The Court firmly rejected this contention, holding that Section 34 mandates reservation of 4% of total vacancies for PwBDs, including 1% for VI candidates (both blindness and low vision). However, Section 33 empowers the Government to identify which specific posts are suitable for which type of disability.

Quoting the judgment, the Court stated: “Identification is, statutorily, of posts—not of vacancies. Reservation under Section 34 is of vacancies; identification under Section 33 is of posts.”

The Court further explained:

“The exercise of reservation under Section 34 precedes the identification under Section 33. After reserving vacancies, it is entirely lawful for the Government to identify which posts are functionally suitable for which disability.”

Is the exclusion of blind candidates from certain posts arbitrary?

The Court answered in the negative, observing that posts involving operational and line safety duties, such as Assistant Loco Shed, Assistant Track Machine, and Assistant Signal and Telecom, were rightly excluded for 100% blind candidates.

It held: “The appointment of a person who, owing to one reason or the other, is physically unable to manage the post, in the Railways, can result in untold public harm and may possibly also endanger life and limb of the public who use the Railways.”

Whether past circulars like the DEPWD OM dated 4 March 2015 or the Circular dated 16 December 2024 have relevance?

The Court examined the OM dated 4 March 2015 and found that it itself excluded posts involving line operations from being suitable for blind candidates. Regarding the 2024 circular about diversion of vacancies, the Court refused to adjudicate on it as it was not examined by the Tribunal but granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the Railways for relief under that circular.

“This judgment shall not act as an impediment to the petitioners seeking benefit of the Circular dated 16 December 2024,” the Court clarified.

Whether the petitioners were estopped from challenging the selection process?

The Court invoked the principle of estoppel, noting that the petitioners had participated in the recruitment process fully aware of the post-wise disability identification mentioned in Annexure A to the CEN 01/2019.

The Court observed: “Having participated in the selection with full knowledge that certain posts were only suitable for persons with low vision, the petitioners cannot challenge the same after being unsuccessful.”

Citing Tajvir Singh Sodhi v. State of J&K (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2719) and Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi (2013) 11 SCC 309, the Court reiterated that unsuccessful candidates cannot turn around to question the process after participating without protest.

Whether identification amounts to impermissible bifurcation?

Rejecting this argument, the Court stressed: “The distinction between reservation and identification is fundamental. Reservation is vacancy-based. Identification is post-based. The two are complementary, not conflicting.”

The Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind (2013) 10 SCC 772, which clarified that identification of posts under Section 33 is an indispensable step before appointments can be made under the reserved quota.

The Court upheld the Tribunal’s finding that more than the mandated 1% of total vacancies (171 out of 10,734) were reserved for VI candidates and that the Railways had lawfully identified which posts were unsuitable for totally blind candidates based on operational safety.

It categorically held: “There is no evidence that any less meritorious candidate was appointed against posts suitable for blindness. The grievance of the petitioners is with respect to posts that were never identified as suitable for total blindness.”

The Court also rejected the plea that Annexure A to CEN was illegal, stating that it was part of the recruitment notification and had never been challenged at any stage until after the petitioners failed selection.

The writ petitions were dismissed. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision and the recruitment process followed by the Railways. However, the petitioners were granted liberty to approach the Railways regarding the subsequent Circular dated 16 December 2024 for consideration without being prejudiced by this judgment.

The Court concluded emphatically:

“Inclusivity is a constitutional goal, but it cannot override operational safety in Railways. The balance between rights of persons with disabilities and public safety must be maintained.”

Date of Decision: 01 July 2025