Tripura High Court Terms Cancellation of 100% Visually Impaired Candidate’s Appointment Illegal, Directs PWD to Restore Job Within 3 Months

By Our Correspondent

Agartala, September 25, 2026

The Tripura High Court has delivered a significant judgment in favour of a 100 per cent visually impaired job aspirant, holding that the cancellation of his appointment to a clerical post was contrary to the statutory protections available to persons with disabilities.

The case relates to a 2011 recruitment notification under which candidates were selected for clerical posts on the basis of a written examination and viva voce. According to the news report, a certain percentage of the clerical posts had been reserved for candidates belonging to different categories, including persons with disabilities.

The petitioner, a 100 per cent visually impaired candidate, had been selected and was subsequently offered appointment against a clerical post reserved for persons with visual disabilities.

However, the Public Works Department (Roads and Buildings) later cancelled the appointment. An order issued by the department’s Secretary in 2024 reportedly stated that a person with 100 per cent visual disability could not be appointed to the particular clerical post. The cancellation order prompted the candidate to approach the High Court.

High Court rejects government’s stand

During the final hearing, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the cancellation of the appointment violated the rights guaranteed to persons with disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

The court was apprised that the 2016 law contains provisions requiring appropriate reservation and equal opportunities for persons with disabilities. It was also argued that government departments had identified various posts in which persons with visual disabilities could be appointed.

The judgment, as reported, noted that the 2020 recruitment notification provided for the appointment of visually impaired candidates to clerical posts. The petitioner’s appointment, therefore, could not be cancelled merely on the ground of his complete visual disability after he had been selected against a post reserved for such candidates.

The High Court further observed that the government could not substantiate its decision to cancel the appointment with a legally sustainable justification.

The court reportedly held that cancelling the appointment of the visually impaired candidate, despite his eligibility against a post reserved for persons with disabilities, was illegal and contrary to the statutory framework protecting the rights of persons with disabilities.

The judgment also referred to the principles contained in the 2016 disability rights legislation, including equality of opportunity, participation and protection against discrimination.

The court consequently directed the authorities to restore/provide the petitioner’s appointment within three months.

more news...