Supreme Court Bars Disability ‘Ceiling’ in Himachal ADA Recruitment – 90% Disabled Advocate to be Appointed Overview The Supreme Court has held that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) defines only a *floor* of 40% disability for reservation eligibility. It does not permit any state to impose an *upper ceiling* that excludes candidates with higher disability percentages, provided they can perform the functional requirements of the post with reasonable accommodation . Applying this principle, the Court directed Himachal Pradesh to appoint a 90% locomotor‑disabled advocate as Assistant District Attorney (ADA). Key Developments The Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (HPPSC) had advertised 24 ADA posts, reserving two for persons with disabilities, but limited eligibility to 40‑60% disability. Advocate Prabhu Kumar , with 90% locomotor disability, cleared the written exam, topped the disabled category, and was recommended after interview. The State rejected his appointment citing the 60% upper limit; the High Court upheld this rejection. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court, stating the 60% cap is arbitrary and contrary to the RPwD Act. The Court ordered immediate issuance of the appointment letter, back‑dated to 19 September 2019, with full benefits, or creation of a supernumerary post if vacancy is unavailable. Costs of ₹5 lakh were imposed on the State for the prolonged denial. Important Facts • Benchmark disability under the RPwD Act is 40%; there is no statutory ceiling. • The Court relied on the 2021 judgment in Vikash Kumar v. UPSC , which overruled the earlier V. Surendra Mohan precedent that allowed a 50% limit for certain categories. • The Court emphasized that eligibility must be assessed on *functional competence* rather than mere percentage of disability. • The decision underscores the constitutional guarantee of equality under Articles 14 and 16 . UPSC Relevance 1. Polity (GS‑2) : Illustrates judicial interpretation of disability legislation, the doctrine of *reasonable accommodation*, and the limits of state discretion. 2. Governance & Public Policy (GS‑2) : Highlights the need for uniform implementation of the RPwD Act across states, a recurring theme in questions on welfare schemes. 3. Ethics & Integrity (GS‑4) : Demonstrates the principle of non‑discrimination and the state's positive obligation to ensure equal opportunity. 4. Legal Framework : The case is a precedent for future disputes on reservation criteria, useful for essay and case‑study questions. Way Forward States must revise recruitment notifications to remove any upper disability limit and ensure compliance with the RPwD Act. Public authorities should institutionalise mechanisms for reasonable accommodation in all public jobs. Awareness programmes for HR officials on functional assessment versus percentage‑based assessment are essential. Continuous monitoring by the Supreme Court and higher judiciary will be crucial to safeguard the rights of persons with disabilities. Thus, the judgment reinforces the constitutional ethos of equality and clarifies that the RPwD Act’s reservation floor cannot be undermined by arbitrary state‑imposed ceilings.