16 June 2025 Civil Writ Petition >> Civil & Consumer Law  

The recent dismissal of a writ petition, though acknowledging a petitioner's "zest and crusade," underscores the complex interplay of legal timelines, legislative evolution, and the principle of finality in recruitment processes. The case of Vishwas Haridas Jadhavar v/s The Union of India Through its Chief Secretary, Ministry of Personnel & Training, New Delhi & Others., revolves around a petitioner afflicted by obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), a recognized mental disability under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (2016 Act). His prolonged battle highlights the challenges faced by individuals seeking redress for historical injustices, even when the law eventually aligns with their pleas.

The Genesis of the Grievance: 2006-2008 UPSC Examinations

The petitioner's journey began with the 2006-2008 Civil Services Examination (CSE) conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). At that time, the prevailing law, the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (1995 Act), provided for a 3% reservation for persons with disabilities. However, this reservation was narrowly interpreted to include only individuals with blindness or low vision, hearing impairment, and locomotor disability or cerebral palsy. Crucially, it excluded mental illnesses.

Despite suffering from OCD, the petitioner could not avail of the disability reservation and consequently applied under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category. He secured 1110 marks out of 2300 in the 2008 examination, a score higher than the 991 marks secured by the last candidate selected under the disability quota. This disparity formed the core of his contention: had mental illness been recognized for reservation at that time, he would have undoubtedly secured a position in the civil services.

A Decade of Legal Battles: From Delhi High Court to a New Act

Aggrieved by this exclusion, the petitioner initiated Writ Petition No. 447 of 2013 in the Delhi High Court, challenging Section 33 of the 1995 Act. He argued that the exclusion of mental illness from disability reservations rendered the provision arbitrary and unconstitutional due to "under-inclusiveness."

The Delhi High Court's learned Single Judge dismissed his petition on January 28, 2013. Undeterred, the petitioner appealed to the Division Bench. While the Division Bench, in its judgment dated October 27, 2016, acknowledged the petitioner's grievances as "to an extent, justified," it concluded that the remedy lay in amending the law, not in judicial intervention to strike down the existing provision or direct his selection. The court, however, recommended that the respondents take action towards a proper evaluation of the matter. A subsequent review petition was also dismissed on March 10, 2017. The petitioner did not pursue the matter further with the Supreme Court.

The Turning Point: The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

During the pendency of the review petition, a significant legislative change occurred: the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (2016 Act) came into force. This new Act brought a welcome change, explicitly including "autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness" under Section 34(1)(d) for reservation in government establishments. This effectively redressed the petitioner's long-standing grievance regarding the exclusion of mental illness from disability reservations.

The Current Petition: Seeking Retrospective Application

Armed with the new legal position, the petitioner made representations to the authorities, seeking appointment to the Civil Services based on his 2008 performance. He argued that his non-selection in 2008 was arbitrary, given his higher marks compared to those selected under the then-existing disability quota and the subsequent legislative recognition of mental illness as a disability. However, his representations were rejected in 2018 and 2019, with authorities stating that no changes could be made to a selection process concluded in 2008.

Consequently, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on April 1, 2019, seeking to quash the rejection letters and to direct his appointment to the Civil Services based on his 2008 examination results, along with consequential benefits. Notably, one of his prayers was for the identification of posts under Section 34(1)(d) of the 2016 Act, which he later conceded had been addressed and he had "no surviving grievance in this regard."

The Court's Determination: Delay, Res Judicata, and Administrative Chaos

The Court, in its recent decision, addressed the petitioner's pleas by considering several key points:

• Delay and Laches: The Court noted the significant delay, with the petition being instituted in 2019 concerning a selection process that concluded in 2008.

• Res Judicata: Crucially, the Court emphasized that all issues and grievances related to the 2006-2008 selection process were thoroughly addressed and concluded by the Delhi High Court. The principle of res judicata (a matter already judged) and constructive res judicata would apply, preventing the petitioner from relitigating the same issues.

• Non-Retrospective Application of 2016 Act: The Court firmly stated that the 2016 Act, while bringing about a positive change, did not "revive the earlier selection processes which were judicially examined and found to be legal and proper." Therefore, the change in law could not be applied retrospectively to a concluded selection process.

• Administrative Chaos: Granting the requested reliefs would lead to "administrative chaos," given that no posts were advertised for persons with mental illness in 2008, and appointing someone to a selection concluded so long ago would create significant complications regarding seniority and induction.

• Prior Rulings Unsupportive: The Court also distinguished the two precedents relied upon by the petitioner, Bhavya Nain Vs. High Court of Delhi and Union of India Vs. Shri Yashwant Kumar & ors., finding their facts dissimilar and not supportive of the petitioner's claim for retrospective benefits.

Conclusion: A Legal and Practical Impasse

While acknowledging the petitioner's commendable persistence and the legislative redressal of his core grievance regarding the recognition of mental illness as a disability, the Court found itself unable to grant the requested relief. The decision underscores the importance of legal finality, the non-retrospective nature of legislative changes unless explicitly stated, and the practical challenges of disrupting concluded administrative processes. Despite the eventual alignment of the law with the petitioner's cause, the timing of his initial challenge and the subsequent legal pronouncements meant that justice, in his specific case, could not be delivered retrospectively.

RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 2016