Nearly 25 years after a visually impaired candidate was denied appointment as an Excise and Taxation Officer, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the State could not have diverted the vacancy reserved for the visually handicapped category to candidates belonging to other disability categories.“The action of filling the vacancy reserved for the visually handicapped category by appointing candidates belonging to other disability categories by resorting to the principle of interchangeability is declared illegal and is hereby quashed,” Justice Sandeep Moudgil ruled before directing the State of Punjab and other respondents to appoint the petitioner with effect from the date of selection under the advertisement, along with consequential service and monetary benefits.The case has its genesis in an advertisement issued by the Department of Excise and Taxation on October 12, 2000, inviting applications for one backlog vacancy of Excise and Taxation Officer (Class-I) reserved for the visually handicapped category.Justice Moudgil’s Bench, during the course of hearing, was told that a corrigendum dated January 18, 2001, increased the number of vacancies from one to three, earmarking one post each for blind/low vision, hearing impairment and locomotor disability/cerebral palsy. Claiming to be a bona fide resident of Punjab and belonging to the visually handicapped category, the petitioner applied for the post.Among other things, the petitioner stated that he possessed a Bachelor’s Degree in Commerce, Master’s Degree in Business Administration and ICWA qualification. He was pursuing LLB at the relevant time. The Bench was also told that the petitioner was called for interview through communication dated March 30, 2001, after he was found eligible. He appeared before the Departmental Selection Committee on April 20, 2001. Instead of declaring the result of the selection process, the respondents appointed three others as Excise and Taxation Officers.The petitioner challenged the appointments, alleging that none of the selected candidates belonged to the visually handicapped category. The post reserved for that category could not legally be diverted to candidates belonging to other disability categories, his counsel argued.State relied on interchangeabilityThe respondents’ principal defence was that the petitioner was found unsuitable considering the arduous nature of the duties attached to the post of Excise and Taxation Officer. They consequently relied upon the principle of interchangeability under Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) ActJustice Moudgil, however, noted that Section 33 mandated reservation of one per cent vacancies each for persons suffering from blindness or low vision, hearing impairment and locomotor disability or cerebral palsy in posts identified for each disability.The Court also noted that the proviso to Section 33 authorised the appropriate Government to exempt an establishment from the operation of the provision only by issuing a notification having regard to the nature of the work carried on therein.Referring to a Supreme Court’s judgment, Justice Moudgil observed that reservation under Section 33 was mandatory and could not be diluted by executive action or administrative convenience. “The provisions of the 1995 Act, being a beneficial legislation, must receive a purposive interpretation so as to advance the object of providing meaningful reservation to persons with disabilities,” the court observed.No question of non-availability of candidateJustice Moudgil also held that the Government policy dated May 2, 1997, merely permitted interchangeability where candidates belonging to a particular category were not available or where the nature of the vacancies was such that a particular category of disabled persons could not be employed. But the policy, being an executive instruction, could not override Section 33 of the 1995 Act and had to be read harmoniously with the statute.Applying these principles, the Court found that the action of the respondents could not be sustained. The petitioner was admittedly available and had participated in the selection process against the vacancy earmarked for the visually handicapped category. Therefore, the contingency under the policy concerning non-availability of a suitable candidate from the reserved category had not arisen.The Bench added the respondents sought to justify interchangeability on the ground that the duties of an Excise and Taxation Officer were such that a visually impaired person could not effectively discharge them. But notification exempting the Excise and Taxation Department or the post of Excise and Taxation Officer from reservation for persons suffering from blindness or low vision was not placed on record.“In the absence of such statutory exemption, neither the department nor the departmental selection committee was competent to divert the vacancy reserved for one category of disability to another by resorting to an administrative decision,” Justice Moudgil observed.Petitioner’s later promotion weakened State’s own caseJustice Moudgil found another circumstance that “completely demolishes the respondents’ defence.” During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner continued in service in the Excise and Taxation Department and was subsequently promoted from Excise and Taxation Inspector to the very post of Excise and Taxation Officer. The Bench held that the subsequent promotion demonstrated that the respondents themselves ultimately found the petitioner competent to perform the duties attached to the post.“The petitioner’s promotion to the post of Excise and Taxation Officer unmistakably demonstrates that the respondents themselves ultimately found him competent to discharge the duties attached to the said post. The very foundation of the respondents’ defence, namely that a visually impaired person could not perform the duties of an Excise and Taxation Officer, thus, stands completely eroded by their own subsequent conduct,” Justice Moudgil asserted.The Bench further held the respondents could not justify the denial of appointment in 2001 after promoting the petitioner to the same post on the contrary premise that he was unsuitable solely because of his visual disability.The High Court concluded that the statutory conditions precedent for resorting to interchangeability had never been satisfied. “Viewed from any angle, the invocation of the principle of interchangeability was wholly contrary to Section 33 of the Act of 1995 as well as paragraph 6 of the Government policy dated May 2, 1997,” the Bench added.The action of the respondents in filling the vacancy reserved for the visually handicapped category by appointing candidates belonging to other disability categories through interchangeability was consequently declared illegal and quashed.Appointment ordered from date of 2001 selectionThe Court noted that the selection of a candidate had been stayed and the post against which she was appointed remained vacant. Besides this, the petitioner was still in service and had not attained the age of superannuation. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, the respondents were directed to appoint the petitioner against the vacancy pertaining to the respondent-candidate “with effect from the date of selection under the advertisement in question”.