Recently, Kolkata witnessed a protest against the faulty 100-point roster, which violated the RPwD Act 2016, by barring General, OBC-A, and OBC-B locomotor disabled candidates from their rightful reservation.
The eligible candidates were sitting outside Bikash Bhavan in this chilly winter, from 15 to 23 December, asking their grievances be addressed by the concerned authority. The protesters, including high-ranking candidates who were denied recruitment due to these roster flaws, are now demanding direct intervention from Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee to rectify the legal discrepancies before further recruitment processes are finalised.
What is the 100-point roster of vacancies?
The 100-point roster is a structured reservation framework used by the government of West Bengal for direct recruitment to state government jobs. It allocates 100 consecutive vacancies across categories such as SC, ST, OBC, EWS, PwD, ex-servicemen, and unreserved slots. In 2025, the government issued an updated model roster via the labour department, consolidating different rules for reservation in government jobs, which was supposed to ensure transparency in upcoming recruitments.
The eligible locomotor-disabled candidates demonstrated against the alleged error in the 100-point model roster established in 2019, as per a notification by the State Labour Department. In the 32nd vacancy in the 2025 roster, it is mentioned that only a locomotor-disabled person (including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy) who belongs to the SC category will be eligible for reservation in the upcoming government jobs. This is a clear violation of the RPwD Act 2016.
Violation of the RPwD Act 2016
According to the disabled protesters, this roster incorrectly limits locomotor disability reservations solely to the candidates from the Schedule Caste (SC) category, effectively excluding all other locomotor-disabled applicants from the General, OBC-A and OBC-B categories, regardless of their score or merit.
The RPWD Act 2016, mandates a minimum 4 per cent reservation in all government establishments, which is horizontal and must apply across all vertical categories (UR, SC, ST, OBC). However, in the 2019 roster, the 32nd point or clause clearly contradicts the RPwD Act 2016.
What is particularly troubling is that this contradiction has been acknowledged within the government itself. Representations made to the Department of Women and Social Welfare were forwarded to the Labour Department, which reportedly accepted the error and returned the file with necessary corrections. Yet the process appears to have stalled thereafter, with no public explanation. An RTI response indicating that the file remains pending only deepens concerns about administrative accountability.
The protesters tried to contact the department secretary, Sanghamitra Ghosh, but she refused to meet them. In July 2025, a case was filed against this apathetic attitude, which violates their lawful rights, before Justice Amrita Sinha. However, after the vacation, they were transferred to the bench of Justice Krishna Rao. Even in court, the Advocate General isn’t appearing systematically, resulting in a delay in obtaining justice.
According to the aggrieved candidates, the roster not only violates the RPwD Act 2016, but also Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However, no rightful actions are being taken by the government.
While the eligible candidates continue to suffer mental and physical harassment, the state government celebrated World Disability Day on 3 December. Even when they were protesting, they had to face police brutality and the denial of access to toilets inside Bikash Bhavan.
They have also sent a letter to the office of the President of India, Draupadi Murmu. The Office of the President sent a letter to the relevant state authorities to investigate this matter, but the authorities seem to have ignored the letter.
Experiences of the individuals
Individual accounts from the movement—such as that of Saddam Hossain, a TET-qualified candidate with locomotor disability—underscore this structural failure. His experience is not exceptional but emblematic: Repeated assurances, postponed meetings, and symbolic engagement without policy resolution.
In an interview, Hossain said, “I am an ordinary citizen of India and a person with disability, yet I was not provided even the minimum protection. This is completely unjust. Why must one suffer in this manner simply to claim legitimate rights?… This caused me deep emotional hurt. These authorities are paid from taxpayers’ money, yet they behaved in this manner towards a citizen with disability. I was compelled to ask: Am I not an Indian citizen?”
Biswarup Barui, another protesting candidate, said that they didn’t receive any assistance from organisations working for persons with disabilities. No discussions or assistance had been offered to them in this movement.
On 27 November 2025, Hossain and other candidates began a protest in front of Bikash Bhavan, which they later temporarily withdrew after being assured by MLA Naushad Siddiqui that a meeting with Social Welfare Minister Shashi Panja would be held on 1 December. When the meeting did not take place, the group again visited Bikash Bhavan on 2 December, only to be informed that the Minister was busy at a disability-related event and would not be attending the office that day.
A written deputation was submitted, but no concrete response followed. After nearly two weeks of silence, a fresh protest was organised at Central Park Metro Station on 15 December. In the middle of a scuffle, Hossain alleges he was thrown out of his wheelchair by the police and left on the road, where he continued his protest. He says a police officer then assured him that he would be allowed to meet the minister and the principal secretary the next day.
On 16 December, Hossain reached Bikash Bhavan at 9 am, hopeful that someone in authority would finally listen. Instead, he says, the Minister did not meet him, and Principal Secretary Sanghamitra Ghosh passed by him near the lift, briefly remarking that “it will take time” before leaving.
“That day I felt deeply insulted,” he recalls in his statement.
Also read: Making doctors prove their disability all over again isn’t how you curb fake certificates
Administrative accountability
The state’s position that no corrective action can be taken while the matter is sub judice is unconvincing. Courts exist to adjudicate disputes, not to prevent governments from correcting acknowledged policy errors. Waiting for judicial intervention when an administrative remedy is available reflects an abdication of executive responsibility rather than respect for due process.
This episode also highlights the broader weakness in disability governance. Nearly a decade after the enactment of the RPwD Act, disability inclusion remains poorly institutionalised within recruitment processes.
Roster preparation, interdepartmental coordination, and grievance redressal mechanisms continue to operate in silos, leaving affected candidates with limited recourse other than protest and litigation. The contrast between symbolic inclusion and substantive action is stark. Official observances of disability rights coexist with reports of indifference towards disabled protesters seeking enforcement of existing law. Such dissonance risks reducing disability rights to ceremonial commitments rather than enforceable entitlements.
Individual experiences emerging from the protest underscore this structural failure. They point not to isolated administrative lapses, but to a governance culture that treats rights-based claims as negotiable. When statutory protections must be repeatedly asserted through protest, the credibility of the rule of law itself comes into question.
Swarnava Bishnu is pursuing MA in Social Work, specialising in Disability studies and action from the School of Social Work, Tata Institute of Social Sciences. Views are personal.
(Edited by Theres Sudeep)