Functional Classification, Not Physical Requirement, Governs PwD Eligibility for Identified Posts: Orissa High Court in OPSC v. Biswajit Panda (26 Aug 2025)

Functional Classification, Not Physical Requirement, Governs PwD Eligibility for Identified Posts: Orissa High Court in OPSC v. Biswajit Panda (26 Aug 2025)

Introduction

In Odisha Public Service Commission v. Biswajit Panda, WA No. 1289 of 2023, the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court (Manash Ranjan Pathak, J. and Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo, J.) set aside a Single Judge’s direction requiring the Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC) to declare a visually impaired candidate selected as Assistant Agriculture Engineer (AAE), Group-B, against PwD-reserved vacancies.

The dispute turned on the legal effect of the State’s post-identification notification under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (PWD Act, 1995) and whether a court, in judicial review, can compel selection of a PwD candidate whose disability category (blindness/low vision) is not one of the functional classifications identified as suitable for that post. The judgment clarifies the binding nature of the identification exercise under Sections 32 and 33 of the 1995 Act and draws a sharp distinction between “physical requirements” and “functional classifications” in the State’s notification.

Parties and posture:

  • Appellant: Odisha Public Service Commission.
  • Respondent: Biswajit Panda, a candidate with 40% visual impairment (blindness/low vision).
  • Procedural history: The Single Judge allowed the writ petition, directed OPSC to declare the respondent selected under PwD quota; OPSC appealed. The Division Bench allowed the appeal, dismissing the writ petition.

Summary of the Judgment

The Division Bench held that:

  • Appointments of persons with disabilities must strictly conform to the State’s identification of posts suitable for specific disability categories under Sections 32 and 33 of the PWD Act, 1995.
  • The Government of Odisha’s General Administration Department notification dated 03.12.2013—issued after an expert committee exercise—identifies the AAE post (Group-B) as suitable only for the functional classifications “OL” (one leg affected), “OA” (one arm affected), “HI” (partly deaf), and “BL (MNR)” (both legs affected, mobility not restricted). It does not include blindness/low vision for AAE.
  • Despite PwD vacancies remaining unfilled in the recruitment, a candidate whose disability is not among the functional classifications identified for that post cannot be appointed to it. Vacancies do not “enure” to the benefit of ineligible disability categories.
  • The Single Judge’s order overlooked the binding identification and conflated the “physical requirements” column with “functional classifications.” Physical requirements (such as sitting, standing, seeing, reading/writing) describe job tasks; they do not expand the eligible disability categories set out in the functional classification.
  • Courts exercise limited judicial review over identification of posts under Section 32; absent a successful challenge to the identification notification on recognized grounds (e.g., arbitrariness), the court will not substitute its assessment or mandate contrary appointments.

Result: The writ appeal was allowed; the Single Judge’s order was set aside; the writ petition was dismissed. No costs.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

  • Ajay Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P., (2023) 16 SCC 82:
    • Reaffirms that identification of posts suitable for various disability categories is the domain of the “appropriate Government” under Section 32 of the PWD Act, 1995.
    • Reservation under Section 33 is to be implemented within the establishment but not necessarily in every cadre/post irrespective of job nature.
    • Courts should not interfere with identified lists or reservations absent proof of arbitrariness, irrationality, or contravention of legislative purpose. The identification and government orders are treated as part of the recruitment framework/advertisement.
    • Applied here to hold that where AAE is not identified for blindness/low vision, a candidate with that disability cannot be appointed to AAE even if vacancies exist.
  • Union of India v. Ravi Prakash Gupta, (2010) 7 SCC 626:
    • Draws a distinction between (a) the obligation to “reserve” posts under Section 33 and (b) the requirement of “identification” for making appointments.
    • While the duty to reserve operates establishment-wide, appointments from particular disability categories can be made only to posts identified as suitable for that category.
    • Relied upon to conclude that Odisha’s 2013 identification list governs appointments; reservation in the abstract does not allow appointments beyond identified functional classifications.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeds in a structured manner:

  • Statutory framework and State identification:
    • Sections 32 and 33 of the PWD Act, 1995 vest in the appropriate Government the responsibility to identify posts suitable for persons with disabilities and to reserve posts within establishments for specified disability categories.
    • The Odisha GA Department notification dated 03.12.2013 is an outcome of an expert, multi-stakeholder committee process. Annexure-II identifies Group-B posts and the functional classifications eligible for each. For the AAE post, the functional classifications are OL, OA, HI, and BL (MNR); blindness/low vision is not included.
    • Given its pedigree and purpose, the identification attracts judicial deference and must be read as part of the recruitment advertisement (which itself flagged eligible PwD categories for AAE).
  • Functional classification vs. physical requirements:
    • The respondent argued that the “physical requirements” listed for AAE (sitting, standing, walking, bending, manipulating with fingers, seeing, reading/writing) should guide eligibility and that anyone able to meet these requirements—such as a person with low vision—should qualify.
    • The Court rejected this, clarifying that “physical requirements” describe job tasks; they do not expand the “functional classification,” which specifies the disability categories that are eligible for that post. The controlling criterion for eligibility is the functional classification.
    • A critical practical clarification: “BL (MNR)” in the notification means “both legs affected (mobility not restricted),” not “blindness.” Confusing abbreviations cannot be used to engineer broader eligibility than the list intends.
  • Roster mechanics cannot override identification:
    • The respondent relied on the 100-point roster in the same notification (paras. 11–11.3) and on para. 9 (allowing, in some contexts, appointments beyond the list).
    • The Court implicitly found that roster allocation among disability categories presupposes that the post is identified for those categories; the roster cannot be used to appoint a disability category to a post for which it is not identified.
    • Para. 9’s discretion to appoint to posts “not included in the list” if physically suitable does not apply where the post is included and already has specified functional classifications. Moreover, that text vests discretion in the appointing authority; it does not create a justiciable right to compel appointment contrary to the identification.
  • Vacancies and entitlement:
    • There were five PwD vacancies in the AAE recruitment. OPSC filled three; two remained unfilled. The respondent scored 83.506, below the third selected candidate’s 91.476.
    • The Court held that the mere existence of unfilled PwD vacancies does not entitle a candidate from an ineligible disability category to be appointed. If suitable candidates from identified categories are unavailable, vacancies may remain and be handled according to carry-forward or roster policies—none of which authorizes appointments outside the identified functional classifications.
  • Limited judicial review and absence of challenge:
    • The Single Judge did not address the core identification issue flagged earlier in the case. The Division Bench emphasized that, unless the 2013 notification is specifically challenged for arbitrariness or legal infirmity, the Court cannot rewrite or ignore it.
    • Relying on Ajay Kumar Pandey, the Bench underscored that courts are not appellate bodies over expert identification committees; their role is supervisory and limited to recognized grounds of invalidation.
  • Past practice does not control:
    • The respondent invoked an earlier (2014–15) recruitment where low vision was considered. The Court held that past advertisements cannot override or estop application of the extant statutory identification framework governing the current recruitment.

Impact and Forward-Looking Implications

  • For recruiting agencies and departments:
    • Advertisements must explicitly and faithfully reflect the Government’s identification of posts and the eligible functional classifications for PwD categories.
    • Selection panels must resist the temptation to “fill vacancies” by straying beyond identified categories; doing so risks quashment and non-compliance with Sections 32–33.
    • Where posts remain unfilled due to non-availability within identified categories, recourse lies in carry-forward/roster mechanics or in prompting the Government to review identification—not in ad hoc appointments.
  • For PwD candidates:
    • Eligibility depends on whether the candidate’s disability category appears in the functional classification for the specific post. Physical ability to perform listed tasks is necessary but not sufficient to secure eligibility.
    • If a disability category is excluded from a post despite technological or practical feasibility, the strategic legal path is to challenge the identification (as arbitrary, irrational, or outdated) or to seek a statutory review—not to seek appointment contrary to the list.
  • For Government/policy:
    • Section 32 mandates periodic review (at intervals not exceeding three years) of identified posts, considering technological developments. Odisha’s 2013 list might warrant updating to reflect assistive technologies and workplace accommodations, especially in technical posts like AAE.
    • The judgment incentivizes timely, evidence-based reviews by expert committees. A robust, current identification minimizes litigation and maximizes meaningful inclusion.
  • For future litigation:
    • Interim judicial leave to sit examinations or viva voce does not confer substantive eligibility or entitlement to appointment if the identification framework excludes the candidate’s disability category.
    • Challenges should be directed at the identification exercise or notification itself, with appropriate evidence and grounds, rather than at individual recruitment outcomes alone.
  • Alignment with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016:
    • Although the Court analyzed the framework under the 1995 Act (consistent with the 2013 notification), the broader principle is congruent with the 2016 Act’s regime: reservation and appointment must track identification of suitable posts for disability categories, and judicial review remains deferential to expert determinations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Appropriate Government:
    • The State (here, Odisha) or the Central Government, depending on the establishment, empowered to identify posts suitable for appointment of PwDs and to frame reservation policies under the statute.
  • Identification vs. Reservation:
    • Reservation (Section 33 of the 1995 Act) sets percentages of vacancies for PwD categories within an establishment.
    • Identification (Section 32) specifies which particular posts are suitable for which disability categories. Appointments can only be made to identified posts for the relevant disability category, even though reservation exists.
  • Functional Classification vs. Physical Requirements:
    • Functional classification denotes the disability categories eligible for a specific post (e.g., OL, OA, HI, BL (MNR)). It is the gatekeeping criterion for eligibility.
    • Physical requirements list the tasks the job entails (e.g., standing, seeing, reading/writing). They inform job design and accommodations but do not expand eligibility beyond the identified disability categories.
  • 100-Point Roster:
    • A rotational system distributing reservation opportunities across disability categories over recruitment cycles. It allocates points but cannot override the threshold requirement that a post be identified for the particular category.
  • Carry-forward of PwD Vacancies:
    • When a reserved vacancy cannot be filled for want of suitable identified-category candidates, it may be carried forward per policy. Carry-forward avoids lapse of reservation but does not authorize appointment of non-identified categories to a given post.
  • Interim examination permissions:
    • Court orders allowing a candidate to sit exams or viva do not create substantive rights. Final appointment remains subject to statutory eligibility and identification norms.

Conclusion

The Orissa High Court’s decision in OPSC v. Biswajit Panda crystallizes a decisive principle: in PwD recruitment, functional classification in the Government’s identification list—not the general physical ability to perform tasks—determines eligibility for a particular post. Reservations under the statute operate establishment-wide, but appointments are tethered to identified posts for specified disability categories. Courts, in judicial review, will not mandate appointments contrary to that identification regime absent a successful challenge to the notification on recognized public law grounds.

Practically, the ruling demands rigour from recruiting bodies in adhering to identification lists; clarity for candidates in assessing eligibility; and diligence from policymakers to periodically update identification in light of technological change and evolving workplace accommodations. The judgment promotes legal certainty and fidelity to the statutory design while highlighting the appropriate avenue—policy review and, where warranted, targeted legal challenge—for expanding inclusion in specific posts.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Orissa High Court

Advocates

Comments