“Very Bad”: Supreme Court Slams Uttarakhand PSC Over Exclusion of Blind Candidates from Judicial Service Exam

“Very Bad”: Supreme Court Slams Uttarakhand PSC Over Exclusion of Blind Candidates from Judicial Service Exam

New Delhi | July 25, 2025 
The Supreme Court of India has come down heavily on the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (UKPSC) for excluding visually impaired and locomotor-disabled candidates from the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) quota in its latest judicial service examination.
 
Describing the exclusion as “very bad”, the bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan issued a notice to the UKPSC and sought a response within two weeks. The court also warned that if no one appears to defend the exclusion, it will proceed ex parte, relying solely on the petitioner’s submissions.
 
The Core Issue
 
The matter stems from a petition filed by a 100% visually impaired candidate, challenging a May 16, 2025, recruitment notification for Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Uttarakhand.
 
The notification limited reservation under the PwBD category to only four disabilities: leprosy cured, acid attack victims, muscular dystrophy, and dwarfism. It excluded candidates with visual impairments and locomotor disabilities, despite these being explicitly protected under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.
 
What the Supreme Court Said
 
“This is very bad. How can blind candidates be excluded from reservation? We already have a judgment on this. You cannot violate it so casually,”
remarked Justice Pardiwala during the hearing.
 
The Court hinted that the case may be tagged with its earlier suo motu proceedings on the recruitment of visually impaired persons in judicial services, where it had affirmed their eligibility.
 
Legal Groundwork
 
Under Section 34 of the RPwD Act, 4% of government jobs must be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities. This quota must include:
• Blindness and low vision
• Deaf and hard of hearing
• Locomotor disability
• Mental illness, autism, multiple disabilities, etc.
 
The petitioner also highlighted the denial of reasonable accommodation, including assistance like a scribe raising concerns over procedural fairness and equal opportunity.
 
 
Case Title: Sravya Sindhuri v. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission & Ors.
 
Share this News

Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy