Introduction

This case commentary examines the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s judgment in Ms. Kritika Mandloi & Others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, pronounced on January 9, 2025. The factual matrix revolves around a selection process for the post of Fisheries Inspector. The petitioners, having successfully cleared the requisite examinations and completed the document verification, faced an abrupt cancellation of the entire recruitment on the ground that the advertised posts did not reserve seats for persons with disabilities (PwD), as mandated by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

The primary question before the court was whether the entire selection process needed to be scrapped to rectify the lack of PwD reservations or whether the authorities could have taken a less drastic measure. The petitioners challenged the decision to cancel the recruitment, arguing that the omission of disability reservations was a “curable defect” that did not justify nullifying an otherwise valid selection. The State and other respondents opposed the petition, maintaining that the original advertisement did not guarantee an absolute right of appointment.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court, per Hon’ble Justice Subodh Abhyankar, held that while a successful candidate does not possess an unconditional right to be appointed, a recruitment process that has substantially progressed—particularly after document verification—should not be canceled due to a curable omission such as the absence of horizontal reservation for PwD. The court emphasized:

• Authorities should not cancel an entire recruitment process that has almost concluded unless there are compelling and unavoidable reasons.
• The lack of seats reserved for persons with disabilities, mandated by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, is remediable without nullifying the entire selection.
• The respondents were directed to preserve the petitioners’ selection and issue appointment orders in accordance with the law, while also ensuring they comply with horizontal reservations for disabled candidates.

In light of these findings, the impugned cancellation order dated August 16, 2023 was quashed, and the petitioners were granted redress.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court decision in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap vs. South Eastern Central Railways (2019 SCC 798). This ruling underscored the principle that candidates with disabilities are entitled to horizontal reservation in recruitment processes under the statutory scheme of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

The court also made reference to the government’s own circulars, particularly the one dated July 3, 2018, which sets out guidelines for ensuring horizontal reservations in recruitment. The petitioners pointed out that the respondents could have followed the provisions of this circular without invalidating the entire selection. Additionally, they cited a coordinate Bench decision in National Federation of Blind, M.P. Branch v. State of M.P. & Others, reaffirming the mandatory nature of reservation for PwD and the necessity to integrate those reservations into the recruitment process in a fair manner.

B. Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning centered on balancing two important considerations:

1. No Vested Right of Appointment: A candidate merely selected does not automatically secure an indefeasible right to appointment, especially when the terms of the advertisement provide that the employer reserves the discretion to cancel or alter the recruitment process.
2. Consequences of Annulment: The High Court recognized that an unjustified scrapping of the entire process could be inequitable—noting that many successful candidates might lose their only chance at government service if they become ineligible due to age or other factors in the event of a fresh recruitment. The court reasoned that it is more proportionate to cure the defect (non-compliance with disability reservation requirements) rather than to conduct an outright cancellation of all the appointments.

In determining a balanced remedy, the court held that the administration could have (1) upheld the valid selection of the petitioners, and (2) provided seats for persons with disabilities, by adjusting the number of posts already advertised or issuing a separate advertisement exclusively for the PwD seats. Such an approach would protect the rights of both able-bodied and specially abled candidates.

C. Impact

This judgment sets a critical precedent in the realm of public employment law while interpreting and harmonizing statutory requirements for disability reservations. Key implications include:

• Proportionality in Recruitment Decisions: Administrative authorities must consider less drastic measures before canceling an entire process. If the defect is one of “form” rather than “substance,” efforts to correct it should be explored.
• Enforcement of PwD Reservations: The judgment highlights the importance of making necessary accommodations for PwD reservations under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, thereby reinforcing the statutory mandate for horizontal reservation.
• Future Guidance to Employers: It discourages blanket cancellations of recruitments on the basis of curable omissions and promotes a more equitable approach that balances individual rights and administrative needs.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Horizontal Reservation: This refers to reservations provided to specific categories (like PwD or women) across various vertical categories (General, SC, ST, OBC, etc.). The “horizontal” element ensures that a certain number of positions are reserved for these categories in each vertical category.

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016: This statute mandates that government establishments, as well as certain private entities, reserve a specified percentage of vacancies for persons with disabilities. It ensures equality of opportunity and inclusion in employment, prohibits discrimination, and mandates accessibility and accommodations.

Curable Defect: In the legal sense, a “curable defect” is an error or omission that can be corrected after the fact without compromising essential fairness or leading to injustice. Missing seats for PwD reservations in the advertisement was deemed “curable” because the deficiency could be remedied by issuing fresh or supplementary notifications without rendering the entire selection invalid.

Conclusion

The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision in Kritika Mandloi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh provides valuable guidance for authorities and recruitment bodies. It illustrates that while an employer generally retains broad discretion in appointment matters, that discretion must be exercised fairly and proportionately. If a recruitment defect is fixable and does not undermine the entire process, courts will be inclined to protect deserving candidates from the adverse consequences of a total cancellation.

Ultimately, the judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the legislative intent behind the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. By quashing the blanket cancellation and directing the State to both appoint the successful candidates and accommodate the missing PwD quota, the ruling ensures that equitable relief is accorded to all stakeholders, thereby setting a firm precedent that prevents trivial errors from derailing complete recruitment processes.