‘An Attempt to Confuse the Court’: Delhi High Court Slams State Over Pending PwD Recruitment

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

The Delhi High Court slammed the Delhi government for failing to fill long-pending posts reserved for persons with disabilities despite repeated court orders. Warning of contempt proceedings, the Court said the State submitted “confusing” affidavits and showed clear administrative callousness.

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday strongly warned the Delhi government that it may start contempt of court proceedings for not filling long-pending vacancies reserved for persons with disabilities (PwDs) in various government departments.

A Division Bench led by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela expressed serious displeasure over the government’s failure to follow the Court’s earlier directions.

The Bench noted that nearly three years have passed since the Court ordered a special recruitment drive to fill backlog PwD vacancies, but the government has failed to take effective action and has only submitted unclear and misleading affidavits.

During the hearing, the Court criticised the Delhi government’s explanation and said,

“Your affidavit is an attempt to confuse the court. You are mixing the ordinary recruitment with the special recruitment drive, where the backlog vacancies were to be filled.”

The Court also came down heavily on the delay in identifying the exact number of backlog vacancies meant for PwD candidates.

It questioned how the government took over a year just to collect basic data. Addressing the Secretary of the Social Welfare Department, the Bench remarked,

“More than 12 months you have taken to collect data. All this could have been done easily and you took a year’s time? We are not on officer A or office B we are on the general callousness.”

The Bench then directed the petitioner, the National Federation of the Blind, a non-profit organisation, to file a detailed affidavit with clear facts and figures regarding the vacancies that were not filled despite court orders.

Making its stand very clear, the Court warned that it would not hesitate to initiate contempt proceedings against the Delhi government if the facts showed deliberate non-compliance.

The Bench stated,

“Please give us facts and figures, we will issue contempt. Give us a clear picture of what they [government] have misled us on. We are quite cognisance of what they are doing.”

The Court ordered that the petitioner must submit its affidavit within two weeks, after which the Delhi government will be required to file its response. The matter is scheduled to be heard next on February 3, 2026.

The case has its background in March 2023, when the Delhi High Court had passed detailed directions asking the Delhi government to conduct a special recruitment drive to fill vacancies reserved for persons with disabilities across various departments.

At that time, the Court had observed that there were around 1,351 vacant posts under the Direct Recruitment quota for PwD candidates. This included 356 vacant posts meant specifically for visually impaired persons.

Later, the National Federation of the Blind approached the Court again, stating that despite clear judicial directions, the Delhi government had failed to implement the special recruitment drive. The organisation sought further directions to ensure compliance with the Court’s earlier order.

Senior Advocate SK Rungta appeared on behalf of the petitioner and assisted the Court in highlighting the continued non-compliance by the Delhi government.

The case highlights ongoing concerns over implementation of disability reservation policies and accountability of government authorities in complying with judicial orders, especially in matters affecting the rights and employment opportunities of persons with disabilities.

Click Here to Read More Reports On PwD Recruitment

author

Hardik Khandelwal

I’m Hardik Khandelwal, a B.Com LL.B. candidate with diverse internship experience in corporate law, legal research, and compliance. I’ve worked with EY, RuleZero, and High Court advocates. Passionate about legal writing, research, and making law accessible to all.

Similar Posts