The Supreme Court has said that meritorious candidates with disabilities must be counted in the unreserved list on their own merit, and the vacated disability-reserved seat must go to the next eligible person with disability. Blocking this “upward movement” quietly shrinks opportunities for persons with disabilities and defeats the aim of reservation.

Syllabus (UPSC): GS-2 (Vulnerable sections; policies & interventions; government schemes) • GS-4 (Ethics: justice, equity, empathy) • Essay

Why this matters now

The Court’s directions come after repeated complaints that recruitment bodies lock high-scoring candidates with disabilities inside the disability quota. That practice erases a seat that should have gone to another person with disability and sends a wrong message—your merit does not count.

India has a large disability population—about 2.2% of citizens (Census 2011; National Sample Survey 2018), i.e., over 2.6 crore people—and public jobs are a vital path to stable income and dignity. Getting the counting logic right is therefore not procedural nitpicking; it directly changes how many persons with disabilities enter government service this year and the next.

What the Court flagged :

• Do not treat disability as a defect to be “fixed”.
  
• Respect merit plus inclusion together.
  
• Make the system show its math so people can verify it.

Concepts Related to Reservation

Many disputes arise because basic terms are mixed up. A quick, shared language prevents errors and litigation.

Key ideas:

• Horizontal vs vertical reservation: Vertical reservation (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes) divides the total seats; horizontal reservation (persons with disabilities, women, ex-servicemen) cuts across all vertical groups. A candidate can be Unreserved-PwD, OBC-PwD, SC-PwD, etc.
  
• Own-merit rule: If any reserved-category candidate scores above the unreserved cut-off, that candidate is placed in the unreserved list on merit.
  
• Upward mobility : A high-scoring candidate with disability goes to unreserved; the disability-reserved seat they would have taken is backfilled by the next eligible candidate with disability. Net effect: merit is recognised and representation is preserved.
  

What the law already provides 

The legal framework already supports inclusion; the gap is in implementation. Understanding the key provisions shows how the Court’s view fits the scheme of the law.

Core law and policy:

• Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016:
  
  • Recognises 21 disabilities; “benchmark disability” is 40% or more.
    
  • Requires at least 4% reservation in government jobs for persons with disabilities, split across disability types.
    
  • Mandates non-discrimination in recruitment and promotion, and reasonable accommodation (assistive technology, adapted workspaces, flexible norms where needed).
    
  • Asks departments to identify suitable posts, maintain separate rosters for persons with disabilities, and carry forward unfilled vacancies.
    

Judicial support:

• Rajeev Kumar Gupta (2016): Reservation for persons with disabilities applies to all groups of posts (subject to identification).
  
• Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka (2020): Reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities is permissible, recognising their distinct constitutional footing.
  
• Current ruling (2025): Upward mobility must operate for persons with disabilities just as it does elsewhere: count own-merit in unreserved and backfill the disability seat.

Where practice breaks

On paper the system is clear; in practice it fails at small but critical steps. Each failure reduces actual appointments of persons with disabilities and fuels avoidable litigation.

Common failure points:

• Wrong counting: High-scoring candidates with disabilities are still debited to the disability quota, silently reducing seats.
  
• Roster confusion: Departments run only a vertical roster and “adjust” disability seats later, instead of using a dual matrix (vertical × disability) and publishing the filled cells.
  
• Promotion neglect: Despite case-law, many offices lack promotion rosters for persons with disabilities, causing stagnation.
  
• Opaque results: No speaking order shows how each seat was counted; candidates cannot verify fairness.
  
• Accommodation gaps: Without budgets for screen-readers, ramps, sign-language interpreters or exam aids, eligibility exists in theory but not in practice.
  

Human effect: A talented candidate is labelled “reserved” even when they excel; a second candidate with disability loses a seat; and the organisation loses diversity and trust.

What the Supreme Court’s push changes

The Court’s directions translate to a simple, verifiable sequence that every recruiter can follow. The aim is to blend merit with inclusion and make the math public.

Correct sequence:

1. Prepare a single merit list and draw the unreserved cut-off.
   
2. Place all candidates with disabilities above the cut-off in the unreserved list (own merit).
   
3. Do not count these placements against the disability quota.
   
4. Fill the disability-reserved seats with the next eligible candidates with disabilities within each vertical category (Unreserved/OBC/SC/ST).
   
5. Carry forward any unfilled disability seats as per rules.
   
6. Publish a category-wise, roster-wise table and a one-page speaking order so the process can be audited.
   

Why this matters: You increase total entries of persons with disabilities without diluting standards and you reduce disputes because the method is visible.

Practical way forward — 

Good policy becomes real only when recruiters can execute it the same way every time. The steps below turn the Court’s logic into everyday practice and protect both candidates and departments.

Recruitment: count right, show your math

• Begin with a clear explanation of how seats will be allocated and end with a published matrix. This builds trust and speeds up joining.

Promotions: unlock the ladder

• Progress through grades is as important as entry. Promotion rosters ensure that inclusion does not stop at the first post.

Exam and workplace accommodations: inclusion by design

• Accommodation turns eligibility into real opportunity; it should be budgeted and announced up front.
• Before exams, publish accommodation menus (extra time, scribes, assistive software, accessible centres).

Data and transparency: measure what matters

• Regular disclosure deters error and bias.
• Department dashboards (quarterly): applications, selections, promotions, roster utilisation, carry-forward backlogs, and accommodation spending.
  
• Yearly independent social audit with disability-rights experts.
  

Capacity and culture: make committees literate

• Rules fail when selection boards are unsure. A short training prevents years of litigation.
  

Counting a high-scoring candidate with disability in the unreserved list honours merit; handing the freed seat to the next candidate with disability expands inclusion. This simple move doubles public value: more diverse teams, better role models, and stronger trust in public recruitment. It also matches the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which promises equal opportunity backed by reasonable accommodation, not charity.

Exam hook

Examination answers should connect the legal rule to real outcomes—who gains, how counting changes results, and how to make it verifiable.

Key takeaways

• Rule: Persons with disabilities have horizontal reservation; own-merit goes to unreserved; the disability seat is backfilled.
  
• Law & policy: RPwD Act, 2016 (≥4% jobs; non-discrimination; accommodation); DoPT rosters and carry-forward; Rajeev Kumar Gupta (2016); Siddaraju (2020); SC 2025 on upward mobility.
  
• Practice: Dual rosters, speaking orders, promotion calendars, accommodation funds, open dashboards.
  

Mains Question:

“What is the difference between horizontal and vertical reservation? How can recruitment and promotion rules ensure fair opportunities for persons with disabilities while keeping merit and transparency intact?”

Hints to use in answer:

• Horizontal vs Vertical: Vertical = caste-based (SC/ST/OBC); Horizontal = across all categories (women, disability).

• Supreme Court direction: Ensure upward mobility → promotions and not just entry-level jobs for persons with disabilities.

• Framework: Clear promotion rosters, minimum performance benchmarks, periodic review, grievance redress.

• Transparency: Publish vacancy lists, selection criteria, rosters, annual representation data.

One-line wrap

Count merit and keep the seat: move high-scoring candidates with disabilities to the unreserved list, give their quota seat to the next eligible person with disability, and publish the math—this is how reservation fulfils its purpose with dignity.