HP High Court upholds rejection of disabled candidate for Pharmacist post
Photo used for indicative purpose only. Source internet
Shimla, Dec 1,
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld the State Health Department’s decision denying appointment to Sajil Kumar for the post of Pharmacist (Allopathy) under the Persons with Disabilities (PWD) quota, observing that he did not meet the essential physical requirements prescribed for the job. Justice Sandeep Sharma, while dismissing the petition on November 7, 2025, noted that the petitioner had been denied appointment “for want of his proper standing and walking,” a condition the Selection Committee found incompatible with the nature of duties attached to the post.
The petitioner, who suffers from 50% locomotor disability and other neurological impairments, argued that once a disability certificate had been issued, appointment could not be denied. He relied on Supreme Court observations stressing sensitivity in dealing with disability matters. However, the Court recorded that the Medical Board’s certificate itself stated that “appointment is subject to the condition rested to the employer,” giving the Health Department discretion to assess suitability based on job requirements.
During the proceedings, the Court directed multiple medical assessments. Neurologist Dr. Sudhir Sharma of AIMSS, Shimla, opined that the petitioner “has left hemiparesis and left homonymous hemianopia” and “needs assistance in his activities of daily living,” though he could perform some essential duties with accommodation. But the Departmental Committee, after reviewing all reports, concluded that he “does not fall under the categories of disabled persons suitable for the post of Pharmacist,” as identified under the State’s notification dated 26.09.2022. The committee further held that he “does not fulfill physical requirement prescribed for the disabled persons for their appointment as Pharmacist.”
Accepting these findings, the Court held that the role of a pharmacist is not sedentary and demands consistent mobility, stating that “one being Pharmacist is required to do physical work, such as of giving first aid… and on some occasions, they are also required to travel to the house of ill person.” Since these duties require adequate standing and walking ability, the Court held that in light of the expert opinion, “no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while denying him the appointment.”
Justice Sharma also distinguished the case from a recent Supreme Court judgment concerning recruitment of visually impaired candidates in judicial services. Noting the fundamentally different nature of duties, the Court observed that judicial work “does not require physical exertion or mobility of the kind essential to a pharmacist’s work,” making the comparison inapplicable. The judge stressed that the State’s identification of suitable disabilities through the 26.09.2022 notification was never challenged by the petitioner, and therefore the Court was bound by its criteria.
Concluding that the petitioner had been evaluated fairly and repeatedly by expert bodies, and that he did not satisfy the prescribed physical standards, the Court dismissed the petition, finding “no merit in the present petition.”
About the Author
The HimachalScape Bureau comprises seasoned journalists from Himachal Pradesh with over 25 years of experience in leading media conglomerates such as The Times of India and United News of India. Known for their in-depth regional insights, the team brings credible, research-driven, and balanced reportage on Himachal’s socio-political and developmental landscape.