Authority: West Bengal High Court

Order Date: (date not specified in the document)

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Anupam Ganguly, diploma holder in Electrical Engineering, represented by Advocates Supratick Syamal and Arkarupa Ray.
  • Respondents: State of West Bengal and others, represented by Advocates Sumit Kumar Panja and Sujit Sankar Koley for WBSETCL.
  • The petitioner applied for the post of Junior Engineer at WBSETCL under the reservation category for Persons with Disabilities – ID (PWD‑ID) as per the advertisement issued in 2022.
  • At the time of application, he submitted a disability certificate indicating an orthopaedic disability; the authorities rejected his candidature on 27 September 2022, stating that orthopaedic disablement does not fall within the PWD‑ID categories (which include autism, mental illness, specific learning disability, etc.).
  • The petitioner later filed the writ petition in 2022 challenging the rejection and subsequently produced a new disability certificate dated 12 March 2025, which listed a locomotor disability (flat foot) and a mental illness – schizophrenia.
  • Counsel for the petitioner argued that schizophrenia qualifies as a mental illness and therefore the petitioner should be considered under PWD‑ID; he also claimed a higher rank in the merit list and sought consideration in the unreserved category.
  • The court examined the documents and observed that the disability at the time of recruitment was orthopaedic, which does not qualify as PWD‑ID, and that the 2025 certificate cannot be back‑dated to the 2022 recruitment period.
  • The court further noted that allowing the petitioner to shift from a reserved to an unreserved category would prejudice other candidates who applied directly in the unreserved category.

Final Outcome

  • The court upheld the September 2022 rejection, finding no ground to interfere.
  • The writ petition was dismissed.
  • No order as to costs was made.
  • Parties may obtain an urgent certified copy of the order on a priority basis.

Topics: Reservation Policy, Employment Law, Court Decision