Pharmacist's Job Requires Mobility: HP High Court Rejects Orthopedically Disabled Candidate's Claim for Appointment

Justice Sandeep Sharma delivered the judgment, reserved on October 27 and pronounced on November 7, 2025.

The dispute traces back to an August 19, 2020, advertisement that notified 17 posts of Pharmacist (Allopathy) under various disability categories. Seven of these were reserved for orthopedically impaired (PWD-Ortho). The petitioner, a B. Pharmacy graduate (2005) with valid registration, applied and appeared for counselling.

In 2022, the recruitment was restarted on a batch-wise basis. The petitioner was again called for counselling on September 6, 2022. During verification, the department referred him to the State Medical Board, which issued him a certificate of 50% permanent locomotor disability.

However, when the selection list was issued on June 7, 2023, the petitioner was not selected, leading him to file a writ petition seeking: Quashing the appointment of respondent No. 4 and a direction to appoint him as Pharmacist (Allopathy) under the SC–PWD category.

The petitioner argued that:

• He possesses an officially certified 50% locomotor disability.
• The State's refusal to appoint him contradicts disability protection laws.
• He relied heavily on the Supreme Court ruling in Syed Bashir-Ud-Din Qadri v. Nazir Ahmed Shah, asserting that disability cases must be handled with “sensitivity and not with bureaucratic apathy.”

The petitioner submitted that the post of Pharmacist is duly identified for reservation under disability quotas and therefore denial on physical requirement grounds was unjust.

The State and its department argued that:

Under Notification dated 23.03.2012 and subsequently Notification dated 26.09.2022, the post of Pharmacist requires abilities such as proper standing, walking, manipulation of fingers, pushing/pulling, etc.

Despite the 50% disability certificate, the Medical Board noted that the petitioner does not meet the required physical standards, specifically due to weakness, hemiparesis, and visual field defects.

A special committee reassessed the case in compliance with the Court’s orders but concluded again that the petitioner “is not suitable for the post of Pharmacist reserved for disabled persons.”

The Court actively intervened and ordered repeated medical evaluations.

On 15.12.2023, the Court observed that the petitioner was denied appointment for lack of “proper standing and walking” and ordered a fresh medical test:

“it would be in the interest of justice, in case, the petitioner is ordered to undergo another medical test by the Medical Board…”

The Court again directed on 03.09.2024, “Medical Board to furnish its opinion… as to whether the petitioner is fit for job for which he has been declared unfit… within two weeks.”

Neurology expert Dr. Sudhir Sharma's opinion was:

“…has normal cognitive abilities and can perform essential duties of a pharmacist with some accommodation and assistance.”

However, the departmental committee concluded that the petitioner does not fall within the identified categories of disabilities suitable for the Pharmacist post as per the 2022 Government Notification.

Justice Sandeep Sharma noted that the petitioner’s 50% disability certificate was subject to employer suitability. The Medical Board and expert committee both confirmed that he lacks the essential physical functions required for the job.

Further, he noted that the role of a Pharmacist requires mobility, emergency duties, field visits, handling instruments, and first aid tasks incompatible with his assessed physical limitations.

The Court distinguished this case from the Supreme Court’s recent suo motu judgment on visually impaired judicial officers, noting that:

“the work of a Judge does not require physical exertion or mobility of the kind essential to a pharmacist's work.”

The Court clearly stated:

“this Court finds no merit in the present petition and accordingly the same is dismissed.”