Retrospective Enforcement of Disability Reservation in Promotions and the Necessity of Formal Exemption under Section 33: Commentary on Bhim Singh v. State of Haryana

1. Introduction

The judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Bhim Singh v. State of Haryana and Others, CWP-15259-2024, decided on 01.12.2025 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil, marks a significant development in Indian disability rights jurisprudence, particularly on reservation in promotions for persons with disabilities and the retrospective enforcement of such reservation.

The petitioner, Bhim Singh, a visually impaired employee of the Forest Department, Government of Haryana, challenged the denial of retrospective promotion against the disability quota. Although he was eventually promoted as Forest Guard in 2007 and as Forester in 2021, he claimed entitlement to promotion:

as Forest Guard from the year 2003, and
as Forester from the year 2013,

both being the years when he first became eligible for consideration under the 3% horizontal reservation for persons with disabilities (PwD), including 1% for persons with blindness or low vision, under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (the 1995 Act).

The case required the Court to resolve, among other things:

whether the petitioner was entitled to consideration for promotion from the date of eligibility under the disability quota;
whether subsequent promotions granted after relaxation of certain conditions could be confined to a purely prospective effect;
whether physical fitness and training requirements could override the statutory reservation in the absence of a formal exemption notification under the proviso to Section 33 of the 1995 Act;
and how State instructions dated 11.07.2023, providing retrospective reservation in promotion for PwDs from 01.01.1996 to 18.04.2017, interact with these rights.

In allowing the writ petition, the High Court not only set aside the rejection of the petitioner’s representation but also laid down robust principles regarding:

the mandatory and continuing nature of disability reservation in promotions,
the requirement of formal exemption if the State seeks to exclude posts from the disability quota, and
the equation of disability rights protection with fundamental rights in terms of seriousness and judicial scrutiny.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The High Court:

Quashed the impugned order dated 16.04.2024 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, which had declined retrospective benefits to the petitioner.
Held that under Sections 32 and 33 of the 1995 Act, and in light of the Haryana Government instructions dated 11.07.2023, the petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion:
- to the post of Forest Guard from 2003, and
- to the post of Forester from 2013,
against the 1% quota for persons with blindness or low vision.
Held that no valid exemption notification under the proviso to Section 33 of the 1995 Act had been issued excluding the posts of Forest Guard or Forester from disability reservation. A mere “proposal” for exemption is legally insufficient.
Rejected the State’s reliance on physical standards and training requirements as a basis to deny reservation, particularly when such standards were later relaxed for the petitioner himself.
Emphasised that the right to be considered for promotion against a reserved quota is a facet of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and the State’s failure to operate the quota amounted to a violation of these guarantees.
Recognized that the right to be free from disability-based discrimination under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (the 2016 Act) must be treated with the same seriousness and protection as a fundamental right.
Directed that the petitioner shall be granted:
- Notional promotion to the post of Forest Guard from 2003 and Forester from 2013,
- with all consequential benefits, including pay fixation and seniority,
- and all resultant financial benefits with interest at 6% per annum from the date they became due till realization.
Directed the State to implement these directions within four weeks.

The judgment thus squarely holds that once the statutory reservation and the State’s own retrospective instructions applied, the petitioner’s promotions could not legally be confined to the dates on which relaxation orders were passed; rather, he had an enforceable right to be considered from the date of initial eligibility.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Factual and Legal Background

The petitioner, Bhim Singh, is a visually impaired employee in the Haryana Forest Department:

Appointed as Mali on 12.06.1998.
Next promotional post: Forest Guard (Group “C”).
He became eligible for promotion as Forest Guard in 2003.
He was actually promoted as Forest Guard only on 13.08.2007, after Government relaxation of certain conditions.
Next promotional post: Forester.
Service rules required:
- 10 years’ experience as Forest Guard, and
- completion of Forest Guard training.
He became eligible for Forester in 2013.
Government granted relaxation from training on 23.11.2021, and he was promoted as Forester w.e.f. the same date.

Meanwhile, the 1995 Act provided:

A 3% horizontal reservation in public employment for persons with disabilities,
with 1% specifically for persons with blindness or low vision,
and mandatory directions to:
- identify suitable posts (Section 32), and
- reserve posts for PwDs (Section 33), unless specifically exempted through a formal notification under the proviso to Section 33.

The State of Haryana’s instructions dated 11.07.2023 gave a further critical dimension to this framework. They explicitly:

Recognized reservation in promotions for PwDs under the 1995 Act, and
Made such reservation applicable retrospectively for the period 01.01.1996 to 18.04.2017, aligning with the regime under the 2016 Act.

In CWP No. 15215 of 2023, the petitioner was earlier permitted to submit a representation to the competent authority seeking promotion from the due dates (2003 and 2013). This representation was, however, rejected by order dated 16.04.2024 (Annexure P-4), leading to the present writ petition challenging that rejection and claiming notional promotions with all consequential benefits.

3.2 Issues Before the Court

The Court distilled the controversy into a narrow but legally rich question:

Whether a visually impaired employee was entitled to be considered for promotion against the 1% quota for persons with blindness or low vision under the 1995 Act, and whether such consideration should have been accorded from the dates of eligibility (2003 and 2013) rather than from the dates when the Government granted relaxations (2007 and 2021).

This subsumed several sub-issues:

Whether the State could rely on physical fitness and training requirements to deny operation of the disability quota;
Whether a mere “proposal” for exemption of field posts (Forest Guard and Forester) from disability reservation could negate statutory rights;
How to interpret the retrospective effect of the 11.07.2023 instructions;
And whether the failure to apply the disability quota from the due dates violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

3.3 Court’s Legal Reasoning

3.3.1 Constitutional and Normative Foundation

The Court begins by situating the dispute within the broader constitutional vision of equality and dignity. It emphasises:

The disability rights framework in India is not merely statutory; it is an expression of the promises embedded in Articles 14 and 16.
The shift from a charity-based to a rights-based model in disability law, starting with the 1995 Act and further sharpened by the 2016 Act.
The principle that substantive equality requires active removal of structural barriers and affirmative measures for inclusion of persons with disabilities.

Quoting the Supreme Court’s decision in Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India, 2022 (1) SCT 254, the Court highlights:

The distinction between formal equality (same treatment for all) and substantive equality (equality of outcomes through affirmative action);
The centrality of reasonable accommodation as a tool to achieve substantive equality;
The understanding of disability as a social construct—exclusion often arises more from environmental/structural barriers than from the impairment itself.

This sets the stage for treating the petitioner’s claim not as a mere service matter, but as a contest over equal citizenship and non-discrimination.

3.3.2 The Statutory Framework: Sections 32 and 33 of the 1995 Act

The Court reproduces and relies on Sections 32 and 33 of the 1995 Act:

Section 32 mandates that the appropriate government:
- Identify posts in establishments which can be reserved for persons with disabilities; and
- Review and update the list at intervals not exceeding three years.
Section 33 requires that:
- Every appropriate government shall appoint in every establishment not less than 3% of vacancies for PwDs,
- with 1% each for blindness/low vision, hearing impairment, and locomotor disability/cerebral palsy,
- in the posts identified for each disability.

Critically, the proviso to Section 33 allows exemption only:

“by notification”
“having regard to the type of work carried on in any department or establishment”.

Thus, the Court underscores that:

If the State seeks to exclude a post from the ambit of reservation, it must do so through a formal notification of exemption, supported by reasons based on the nature of duties. A mere proposal or internal consideration falls far short of this legal requirement.

In Government of India & Anr. v. Ravi Prakash Gupta & Anr., (2010) 7 SCC 626, the Supreme Court had similarly emphasised that:

Identification of posts and implementation of reservation are mandatory obligations;
Failure to identify posts cannot be a defence to deny rights under Section 33.

The High Court draws from this line of reasoning to reiterate that:

“What is required is the identification of posts in every establishment until exempted under the proviso to Section 33 of the 1995 Act.”

3.3.3 The Haryana Instructions of 11.07.2023 and Retrospectivity

A pivotal turning point in the Court’s analysis is the State Government’s own instructions dated 11.07.2023, which:

Provide for reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities, and
Expressly extend this reservation to the period 01.01.1996 to 18.04.2017.

Given that:

the petitioner became eligible for Forest Guard in 2003, and
for Forester in 2013,

both dates lie within this retrospective window.

The Court therefore holds that:

The disability reservation was operative and enforceable during the relevant years;
The petitioner, being the only visually impaired employee in the feeder cadre, was entitled to be considered against the 1% quota for blindness/low vision for each promotional post;
Once the instructions themselves adopt retrospectivity, the State cannot confine the petitioner’s benefit to the dates of later relaxations (2007, 2021).

The Court expressly concludes that the retrospective instructions “remove any doubt” that:

“…the disability quota ought to have been operated in the petitioner's case when the promotional vacancies arose in 2003 and 2013…”

3.3.4 Physical Standards, Training Requirements, and the Myth of Ineligibility

The State argued that the posts of Forest Guard and Forester are field-level posts requiring:

physical fitness,
mobility, and
adequate visual capacity,

and that the petitioner did not meet these at the relevant times, particularly in view of rules on physical standards and mandatory training.

The Court rejects this line of defence for several reasons:

No exemption notification under Section 33:
The State had not produced any notification under the proviso to Section 33 formally exempting the posts of Forest Guard and Forester from disability reservation. A pending “proposal” for exemption cannot override a statutory right.
Subsequent relaxations undermine the argument of inherent ineligibility:
The petitioner was in fact:
- promoted as Forest Guard in 2007 after relaxation of conditions, and
- promoted as Forester in 2021 after waiver of training.
This shows that the State itself considered him capable of discharging the duties, undermining the contention that he was inherently unsuitable.
Reservation cannot be diluted by unchecked reliance on physical norms:
Where posts are not exempted under Section 33, the State must approach physical and training requirements through the lens of reasonable accommodation and inclusion, rather than as rigid bars to eligibility.

In essence, the Court implies that eligibility standards cannot be used to nullify a statutory reservation regime, especially where:

no legal exemption exists, and
the State has already accepted the same candidate as fit for those posts at a later point.

3.3.5 Articles 14 and 16 and the Right to be Considered for Promotion

The Court reinforces the now-settled principle that:

While there is no absolute right to promotion, there is an enforceable right to be considered for promotion in accordance with law and applicable policies.
This right is a component of the guarantee of equality of opportunity in public employment under Article 16.

In this context, the Court finds that:

The authorities failed to operate the disability quota during the years when the petitioner was eligible (2003, 2013);
No exercise was shown to have been undertaken to compute or fill disability quota vacancies during those years;
Such omission constitutes a violation of Articles 14 and 16, as it denies the petitioner the statutory and constitutional right to be considered against reserved vacancies.

The Court’s censure is strong: bureaucratic inertia cannot defeat substantive rights flowing from beneficial legislation. The Court explicitly notes that:

“The denial of such consideration was contrary to statutory mandate and constitutional principle.”

3.3.6 Elevation of Disability Rights Protection

In its concluding remarks, the Court states that:

“The right to be free from disability-based discrimination, as enshrined in the 2016 Act must be regarded with the same seriousness and protection as a fundamental right…”

This is a powerful formulation. While the 2016 Act is an ordinary statute, the Court:

Aligns its protections with the constitutional ethos of equality and dignity;
Signals that any state action adversely affecting PwDs will attract a high level of judicial scrutiny, comparable to that for violations of fundamental rights;
Strengthens the interpretive trend which treats disability discrimination as constitutionally suspect.

This is consistent with the Supreme Court’s evolving approach of reading disability rights into Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21, and harmonising the 2016 Act with India’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).

3.3.7 Relief Granted

On the basis of the above reasoning, the Court grants the following reliefs:

Sets aside the impugned order dated 16.04.2024 (Annexure P-4).
Holds that the petitioner was entitled to consideration:
- for promotion to Forest Guard from 2003, and
- for promotion to Forester from 2013,
against the disability quota.
Directs that he shall be accorded:
- Notional promotion as Forest Guard from 2003, and as Forester from 2013;
- with all consequential benefits, namely:
  - fixation of pay,
  - seniority, and
  - other service benefits flowing therefrom;
- and all related financial benefits with 6% interest per annum from the date they became due till realisation.
Directs the respondents to implement the judgment within four weeks.

The remedy of notional promotion ensures that:

The petitioner gets seniority and pay fixation as if he had been promoted from the due dates;
While simultaneously safeguarding the administrative chain (existing promotions of others are generally not disturbed in real-time postings, unless specifically ordered).

3.4 Precedents and Authorities Cited

3.4.1 Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India, 2022 (1) SCT 254

The High Court draws on this Supreme Court decision for a conceptual framework on equality and disability. The key principles adopted are:

Dual facets of Article 14:
- Formal equality – the idea that everyone should be treated the same; and
- Substantive equality – the idea that the law may treat people differently to achieve genuinely equal outcomes.
Reasonable accommodation: As a specific manifestation of substantive equality, requiring adjustment of rules and practices to the individual needs of disabled persons.
Disability as a social construct: The Supreme Court observed that the sense of disability is produced and exacerbated by the lack of accessible facilities and institutions designed around able-bodied norms.

By invoking these principles, the High Court:

Justifies a pro-active, inclusive reading of the 1995 and 2016 Acts;
Rejects any approach that mechanically applies physical standards without regard to reasonable accommodation and statutory reservation;
Frames the petitioner not as a beneficiary of charity, but as a rights-holder whose substantive equality must be secured.

3.4.2 Government of India & Anr. v. Ravi Prakash Gupta & Anr., (2010) 7 SCC 626

This precedent is used to reinforce the obligations under Sections 32 and 33 of the 1995 Act. The Supreme Court had held that:

The duty to identify posts suitable for PwDs is a legal obligation, not a matter of discretion;
Reservation must be actually implemented, and cannot be negated on the pretext that posts were not identified in time;
Backlog vacancies must be carried forward and filled.

The High Court cites this to clarify that:

The identification-exemption framework is central to the operation of Section 33;
Unless posts are specifically and lawfully exempted, they fall within the reservation regime by default;
The State’s inaction in issuing exemption notifications or in operating the quota cannot defeat the vested rights of disabled employees.

3.4.3 Statutory and Policy Framework

Beyond case law, the judgment relies significantly on:

The 1995 Act – particularly Sections 32 and 33 and the proviso thereto.
The 2016 Act – especially its emphasis on:
- non-discrimination,
- equality of opportunity, and
- reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities.
State instructions dated 11.07.2023 – which operationalise reservation in promotions for PwDs between 01.01.1996 and 18.04.2017.

Collectively, these authorities ensure that disability rights are seen as part of a continuum of protection from 1995 through 2016 and beyond, with the State’s own policy explicitly embracing retrospective application.

3.5 Impact and Significance

3.5.1 Strengthening Disability Reservation in Promotions

This judgment firmly establishes that:

Where the law and government instructions provide for disability reservation in promotion, authorities are duty-bound to apply it from the date of eligibility of the candidate;
Subsequent administrative relaxations or delays cannot be used to truncate benefits or postpone the effect of reservation;
The right to be considered for promotion under the disability quota is a robust, enforceable right.

In practical terms, this will:

Encourage other disabled employees to seek similar retrospective benefits where the State has belatedly recognized reservation in promotions;
Prompt departments to review past Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) proceedings to ensure the disability quota was duly operated.

3.5.2 Clarifying the Necessity of Formal Exemption under Section 33

A very important doctrinal contribution of the judgment is its insistence that:

Exemption from disability reservation is not automatic even for field or physically demanding posts;
The State must:
- form a reasoned opinion “having regard to the type of work”, and
- issue a formal notification under the proviso to Section 33;
A pending proposal, or an internal decision, is legally irrelevant without such a notification.

This principle will constrain arbitrary or informal attempts by departments to exclude entire cadres from the disability regime on vague grounds of physical requirements, and will:

Force departments to re-examine job descriptions in light of reasonable accommodation and technological advances;
Discourage blanket exclusions and promote a more nuanced, post-specific analysis.

3.5.3 Elevating Disability Rights to a “Fundamental Rights” Paradigm

By declaring that the right to be free from disability-based discrimination under the 2016 Act must be treated with the same seriousness as fundamental rights, the Court:

Places disability rights in the core zone of constitutional adjudication rather than in the periphery of service jurisprudence;
Signals that strict scrutiny may be warranted when State action disproportionately burdens PwDs;
Supports a broader movement in Indian law towards transformative constitutionalism—using constitutional values to reshape social structures and state practices.

This doctrinal move will likely influence future litigations involving:

access to public employment,
educational accommodations,
accessibility in public infrastructure, and
policy design affecting persons with disabilities.

3.5.4 Administrative and Financial Implications

The direction to grant notional promotions with full consequential benefits and 6% interest has tangible implications:

There may be significant financial liability for the State where similar claims surface;
Departments will be incentivised to:
- implement reservation policies accurately and promptly,
- maintain clear records of vacancies and DPC proceedings, and
- avoid ad hoc denials that may later translate into heavy arrears with interest.
Other disabled employees who were denied timely promotions despite eligibility under the quota may seek:
- notional promotion,
- seniority correction, and
- arrears with interest.

3.5.5 Symbolic and Jurisprudential Significance

The Court’s eloquent observation that:

“The measure of a compassionate State is not how it treats the strong, but how it uplifts those whom circumstance has made vulnerable… Equality is not a mechanical formula but a human commitment. Therefore the law must bend toward inclusion…”

cements the case as a significant symbolic reaffirmation of inclusive constitutionalism. It underscores that:

Courts will step in where “bureaucratic indifference” allows statutory rights to wither;
The function of judicial review is not sentimental benevolence, but strict enforcement of legal entitlements crafted for historically marginalised groups.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

4.1 Horizontal vs. Vertical Reservation

Vertical reservation:
- Is for social categories like SC, ST, OBC;
- Operates as separate “compartments” of seats or posts;
- Example: 15% SC, 7.5% ST, 27% OBC.
Horizontal reservation:
- Cuts across all vertical categories;
- Is for groups like women, persons with disabilities, ex-servicemen;
- Within each vertical category, a fixed percentage is reserved for such groups.

In this case, the 3% reservation for persons with disabilities (including 1% for blindness/low vision) is a form of horizontal reservation applied across all categories.

4.2 Notional Promotion

A notional promotion means:

The employee is treated in law as if they had been promoted from an earlier date,
for purposes such as:
- seniority,
- pay fixation, and
- pension and other terminal benefits;
However, it may not always involve actual retrospective posting in that role during the relevant period, especially where that would disturb settled third-party rights, unless the court specifically orders otherwise.

4.3 Sections 32 and 33 of the 1995 Act

Section 32 – Identification of posts:
- The government must periodically identify posts suitable for persons with disabilities;
- This is a proactive duty to map out where disabled persons can be accommodated.
Section 33 – Reservation of posts:
- Mandates at least 3% of vacancies to be reserved for PwDs;
- Specifies a sub-division: 1% for each of three broad categories of disability (including blindness/low vision);
- Contains a proviso allowing the government to exempt certain establishments, but only by notification and with reasons related to the nature of work.

4.4 Reasonable Accommodation

“Reasonable accommodation” means:

Necessary and appropriate modifications and adjustments,
which do not impose a disproportionate or undue burden,
to ensure that persons with disabilities can enjoy or exercise rights on an equal basis with others.

In employment, this could involve:

Adjusting physical standards where they are not genuinely essential;
Providing assistive devices or technology;
Modifying duties or providing support to enable the employee to perform essential functions.

4.5 Right to be Considered for Promotion

Indian courts distinguish between:

No absolute right to promotion – one cannot insist that one must be promoted.
But a clear right to be considered – if a candidate is eligible under rules and quotas, the authorities must:
- consider the case fairly,
- operate all applicable reservations, and
- avoid arbitrary or discriminatory exclusion.

Denial of such consideration, especially where a mandatory reservation applies, amounts to a violation of Articles 14 and 16.

5. Conclusion

The decision in Bhim Singh v. State of Haryana is a significant milestone in the judicial enforcement of disability rights in public employment. It crystallises several important principles:

Reservation in promotions for persons with disabilities, where provided by statute and policy, is mandatory and enforceable, including for past periods if the State has itself adopted a retrospective regime.
Disabled employees are entitled to consideration from the date of eligibility under the applicable quota; administrative delays or belated relaxations cannot curtail this right.
Posts cannot be casually excluded from the disability quota. Unless there is a formal, reasoned exemption notification under the proviso to Section 33 of the 1995 Act, all identified posts remain within the fold of reservation.
Physical and training requirements must be interpreted in light of:
- reasonable accommodation,
- technological developments, and
- the overarching mandate of inclusion;
they cannot be used as a backdoor to nullify statutory reservations.
The right to be free from disability-based discrimination, as recognised by the 2016 Act, must be treated with the same seriousness as fundamental rights, bringing disability jurisprudence firmly within the heart of constitutional adjudication.

By granting notional promotions from 2003 and 2013 with full consequential benefits and interest, the Court ensures that the petitioner does not remain a victim of institutional inertia. More broadly, the judgment sends a clear signal that:

Statutory rights crafted to level the playing field for persons with disabilities are not optional guidelines—they are binding obligations. When the executive fails to honour them, the judiciary will not hesitate to realign the scales in favour of substantive equality and inclusive citizenship.