The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed the petition of Sajil Kumar, an orthopedically disabled candidate, who claimed he was wrongly denied appointment to the post of Pharmacist Allopathy under the PWD SC quota. The Court held that the pharmacist role requires physical mobility and the petitioner did not meet the medical standards needed for the job.
The issue began with an advertisement issued on August 19, 2020, announcing 17 vacancies for Pharmacist Allopathy. Out of these, seven seats were reserved for candidates with orthopedic disabilities. Sajil Kumar, a B Pharmacy graduate from the 2005 batch and a registered pharmacist, applied under this reserved category.
He attended counselling in 2020. However, the recruitment process was delayed and later revived in 2022. The department again called him for counselling on September 6, 2022. During verification, officials referred him to the State Medical Board to confirm his disability status. The Board issued him a certificate stating that he has a permanent locomotor disability of 50 percent.
Despite this, when the final selection list was released on June 7, 2023, his name did not appear. Another candidate from the same reservation category was selected for the post. Feeling aggrieved, Sajil Kumar approached the High Court and challenged the decision.
Sajil Kumar argued that since he had a valid disability certificate and the post was clearly reserved for orthopedic disability, the state was legally bound to appoint him. He cited previous judgments that emphasised the need to handle disability cases with sensitivity. He maintained that denying him the job despite official certification was unfair and discriminatory.
He also argued that the pharmacist role could be performed by a person with his level of disability, particularly because he had been found cognitively normal and capable of performing essential tasks by a neurology expert.
The state argued that the job of a pharmacist requires significant mobility. Government notifications issued on March 23, 2012, and September 26, 2022, outline the physical functions needed for the post. These include standing for long periods, walking, manipulating objects, handling equipment, providing first aid and performing emergency duties.
According to the medical assessments, the petitioner has left hemiparesis, facial weakness and visual field defects. The examining committee concluded that these conditions affect his ability to stand, walk and carry out essential physical tasks required in a pharmacy setting.
The state maintained that although reservation policies support persons with disabilities, these policies do not apply when the disability directly impacts the essential functions of the job.
Justice Sandeep Sharma reserved the judgment on October 27, 2025 and pronounced it on November 7, 2025. The Court observed that the work of a pharmacist is not limited to sitting at a counter. It involves physical work such as emergency handling, stock management and sometimes field duties.
The Court held that the petitioner does not fall in the permissible disability categories suitable for the pharmacist role as defined under the 2022 notification. Therefore, the selection committee had acted correctly while denying him the appointment.
(Rh/ARC/MSM)