Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Neha Sangwan vs Gnctd on 3 September, 2025
1
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.3309/2025
Reserved on: 02.09.2025
Pronounced on: 03.09.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
Neha Sangwan D/o Samsher Singh
H/No. 1437, Gali No. 1, Gohana Road,
Shashtri Colony, Sonepat, Haryana-131001.
Haryana 131001.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Vinayak Bhandari)
Versus
1. Government Of Nct Of Delhi Through Secretary,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002
2. Controller Of Exam, Delhi Subordinate Services
Selection Board (Dsssb) Fc-18,
Fc 18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, Delhi-110092
Delhi
3. Directorate Of Education Through Director,
Education (Doe), Room No-12,
No 12, Old Secretariat, New
Delhi
Delhi-110054
4. Ministry
Ministry Of Social Justice And Empowerment
Union Of India Through Director, (Depwd) Shastri
Bhawan, New
Delhi - 110001.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Anand)
2
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
In the instant O.A., the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:
"a. Issue a direction to the Respondent No. 2 to allow the Applicant to use a scribe and avail compensatory time for writing the examination for the post of TGT (Natural Science) under Post Code 806/24.
b. Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice."
2. Keeping in view the urgency of the matter, and with the conse consent nt of learned counsel for the parties, the Original Application is taken up for final disposal at this stage, as the examination is scheduled to be held on 06.09.2025. 2.1 Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant seeks a direction to the respondents to permit her to avail the assistance of a scribe and compensatory time in the forthcoming examination for the post of TGT (Natural Science) under Post Code 806/24. It is contended that the applicant suffered three fractures on her right arm arm on 01.08.2025. In support of this contention, reliance is placed upon the MRI Report, which records as under:
"• Mildly displaced fracture seen involving anatomical neck, greater tuberosity and surgical neck of humerus with moderate marrow edema of upperr end of humerus.
• Partial tear of subscapularis tendon.
• Partial tear of supraspinatus tendon involving its anterior attachment site on greater tuberosity.
• Mild to moderate amount of hemorrhagic fluid in joint space. Advice:
Clini"
2.2 Learned counsel further drew our attention to the fact that the applicant was issued a "Temporary Disability Certificate" duly signed by the Deputy Civil 3 Surgeon and the Medical Officer on 08.08.2025 (Annexure A A-6),
6), which reads as under:
"This is to certify that Neha Neha Sangwan 0/o Sh. Samsher Singh, whose photograph is affixed below, is suffering from #proximal Humerers (Rt). She. was operated on dated 07.08.2025. Due to this disease she is Temporarily Disable and she is unable to Write/Type."
2.3 Learned counsel further fur stated that the applicant uses her right hand for writing purposes. The applicant has undergone surgery and, therefore, is temporarily disabled and unable to write/type. 2.4 Learned counsel further drew our attention to an Office Memorandum dated 01.08.2025 with Subject: Revised Comprehensive Guidelines for conducting competitive written public examinations (linked to employment or admission to professional or technical courses) for Persons with Disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Disabiliti Act, 2016,, incorporating the Hon'ble Supreme Court Directives in the matter highlighting para '3', which reads as under:
"3. These Guidelines apply to all individuals defined as Persons with Disabilities under Section 2(s) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016. However, the facility of assistance (i.e. technological aid like software enabled laptop/ desktop, reader, lab assistant or scribe, as prescribed in the subsequent paragraphs) during written exam may be provided to all such candidates who, due to their disability, face functional limitations in writing an examination, irrespective of the nature or extent of their disability. This includes, but is not limited to, individuals with physical limitations in writing, visual impairments impairments preventing reading or writing, intellectual disabilities affecting comprehension or expression, or any other disability that impedes their ability to participate effectively in the examination process, as certified by a competent authority, as specifspecified ied in the following guidelines."
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit. 4 3.1 Learned counsel submitted that the applicant is not entitled to a scribe inasmuch as the reliance eliance placed on O.M. dated 01.08.2025 is misplaced, as it pertains to persons with disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
3.2 The applicant herein, however, does not fall within the ambit of the parameters prescribed under the Rights of Persons ns with Disabilities Act, 2016.
3.3 He further submitted that unless and until the applicant is declared a person with disabilities under Section 2(s) of the RPWD Act, 2016, no assistance or scribe can be provided to the applicant.
3.4 He further drew our attention to Section 2(s), of the RPWD Act, 2016, which reads as under:-
under:
"2(s) "person with disability" means a person with long term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which, in interaction with barriers, hinders his full and effective participation in society equally with others;"
3.5 Learned counsel further relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit highlighting that even the certificate relied upon by the applicant is not in consonance with format in terms of Appendix-II to the 2016, Act, which reads as under:
"Certificate for a person with specified disability covered under the definition of Section 2 (s) of the RPwD Act, 2016 but not covered under the definition of Section 2(r) of the said Act, i.e. persons having less than 40% disability and having difficulty in writing This is to certify that, we have examined Mr/Ms/Mrs......... candidate), S/o/D/o...., a resident of.........(Vill/PO/PS/District/State), aged....... (nature of disability/condition), and to state that he/she has limitation which hampers his/her writing capability owing to his/her above condition. He/she requires support of scribe for writing the examination.
2. The above candidate uses aids and assistive device such as prosthetics & orthotics, hearing aid (name to be specified) which is /are essential for the candidate to appear at the examination with the assistance of scribe.5
3. This certificate is issued only for the purpose of appearing in written examinations conducted by recruitment agencies as we well ll as academic institutions and is valid upto (it is valid for maximum period of six months or less as may be certified by the medical authority) Signature of medical authority"
(Signature & (Signature & Name) (Signatu (Signatur (Signatur Name) re & e & e & Name) Name) Name) Orthopedic/ Clinical Neurolo Occupatio Other PMR Psychologist/Rehabilitati gist (if nal Expert, specialist on availabl therapist as Psychologist/Psychiatrist e.) (if nominate /Special Educator available) d by the Chairper son (if any) (Signature & Name) Chief Medical Officer/Civil Surgeon/Chief District Medical Officer.....Chairperson.
Name of the Government Hospital/Health Care Centre with Seal Place:
Date:"
3.6 Learned counsel further relied upon frequently asked questions for persons with benchmark disabilities (PwBD) candidates in case of examination conducted by UPSC, which read as follows:
"Q.1 Who can opt for the facility of scribe?
A. The Persons with Benchmark Disabilities Disabilities (PwBD) in the categories of blindness, locomotor disability (both arm affected - BA) and cerebral palsy are provided the facility of scribe, if desired by the person. In case of other category of Persons with Benchmark Disabilities as defined under sec section tion 2(r) of the RPWD Act, 2016, the facility of scribe is allowed to such candidates on production of a certificate to the effect that the person concerned has physical limitation to write, and scribe is essential to write examination on behalf, from the Chief Medical Officer/ Civil Surgeon/ Medical Superintendent of a Government Health Care institution in the prescribed proforma.
Q.7 If any non-PwBD non PwBD candidate unfortunately fractures or injures his/her writing hand before the Examination, will he/she get tthe facility of scribe?6
A. There is no such provision in the Rules of Examinations. It is reiterated that only the candidates having specific disability and having the valid disability certificate as per prevailing rules are eligible for scribe."
4. In rejoinder er to the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to the decision ecision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gulshan Kumar vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection and Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 223, highlighting para '21.2', which reads as under:
"21.2. The judgment in Vikash Kumar mandates that any disability imposing a barrier to a candidate writing an examination should be remedied by extending the necessary facilities. In the case of blind or low vision candidates, the disability does not prevent them from "writing" per se, but it certainly imposes a barrier to writing the examination. However, Clause (3) of the Office Memorandum only extends facilities to candidates who ha have ve "difficulty in writing". Furthermore, Clause 3(b) of the Office Memorandum creates confusion and a problematic situation, where the rights of PwD candidates to receive facilities in examinations can be denied simply because their disability is not related related to "writing". This contradicts the entire purpose of the Act. Therefore, this Court may direct Respondent 5 to strike down the restrictions in Clauses (3) and 3(b) and extend examination relaxations to all PwD candidates, regardless of the nature, type, or form of disability."
4.1 Learned counsel for the applicant reiterated that the Office Memorandum dated 01.08.2025 is explicitly clear and crystallizes the issue in the light of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gulshan Kumar (supra), which hich reads as under:"
"These revised Comprehensive Guidelines on the subject are being issued in supersession of all existing instructions on the subject i.e DEPwD's OM No. 29-6/2019- DD-III DD III dated 10.08.2022 and DEPwD's OM No. 34 34-02/2015-- DD-III III dated 29.08.2018 29.08.2018 with a corrigendum issued in the matter vide OM No. 34-02/2015 02/2015-DD-IIIIII dated 08.02.2019 and, in so far as it is concerned with the competitive written public examinations (linked to employment or admission to professional or technical courses), to br bring ing them in line with the provisions of the RPwD Act, 2016; the Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024; rules made under these legislations, and the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in their Orders dated 11.02.2021, 23.11.2021 and 03.02.2025 in Vikas Kumar Vs. UPSC, Avni Prakash Vs. National Testing Agency and Gulshan Kumar Vs IBPS and Ors. respectively."7
4.2 Learned counsel for the applicant stated that the examination for the post of TGT Natural Science under Post Code 806/24 is scheduled on 06.09.2025 and 07.09.2025 vide Notification F.55(409)/Exam/DSSSB/2025/1381 F.55(409)/Exam/DSSSB/2025/1381-1388 1388 dated 28.07.2025.
5. Heard counsel for the parties at length and perused the records of the case.
6. ANALYSIS:
6.1. The facts of the case are not in dispute.
6.2. The OM dated 01.08.2025 also also recognizes that an individual individual's 's condition may not prevent him/her him/her from "writing" per se, yet it undoubtedly creates a barrier in effectively writing the examination. The expression "barrier" under Section 2(c) of the RPwD Act, 2016, encompasses any factor factor--communicational, communicational, cultural, economic, environmental, institutional, political, social, attitudinal, or structural structural--
--
that hampers the full and effective participation of persons with disabilities in society. In the present case, case, the fracture and subsequent surgery, coupled with the certification issued by the Civil Surgeon of a Government hospital declaring the applicant to be under temporary disability, clearly establish such an impediment. The genuineness of the opinion rendered rendered by the Civil Surgeon has not been disputed by the respondents.
6.3. The RPwD Act, 2016 does not draw any distinction between temporary disability and permanent disability. In a situation where the Rules are silent or where no express provision exists under under any statute, it cannot be construed as an embargo upon the Court or Tribunal to arrive at a just decisio decision, n, particularly within the ambit of its powers of judicial review. 8 6.4 We draw a reference to the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 14333 of 2024 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 27632 of 2024), Anmol v. Union of India & Ors., Ors , decided on 21.02.2025, wherein the Apex Court observed as under:--"
"34....WeWe have also held hereinabove that such an insistence in a statutory regulation gulation is absolutely antithetical to the objectives of Article 41 and the principles set out in the United Nations Convention and the rights guaranteed under the RPwD Act.
35. A prescription such as "both hands intact..." reeks of ableism and has no place in a statutory regulation. In fact, it has the effect of denuding the rights guaranteed under the Constitution and the RPwD Act and makes a mockery of the principle of reasonable accommodation.
accommodation."
6.5. Wee are of the considered view that while arriving at a conclusion, nclusion, due regard must be given to the functional assessment and the actual limitations faced by the applicant, so as to determine whether she can be reasonably accommodated. The case of the applicant ought not to be defeated on technicalities or on tthe he mere play of legal jargon in interpreting the statute or its applicability. 6.6 The case of the applicant must be examined against the touchstone of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. A restrictive interpretation of the term 'long-term' m' as used in Section 2(s) of the RPWD Act Act--i.e., i.e., that a 'person with disability' means one with a long-term long term physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory impairment which, in interaction with barriers, hinders full and effective participation in society equally equal with others would defeat the very object and spirit of the legislation. The definition is deliberately framed as an inclusive one, intended to advance the cause of meaningful participation rather than to narrow its scope.
96.7 The expression 'long ' term' must be understood in the context of an impairment which, in interaction with barriers, obstructs the full and effective participation of a person in society equally with others. Such impairment may, in a given case, even be temporary. The concept of 'rea 'reasonable sonable accommodation' is embedded in the equal opportunity policy under the RPWD Act, which contemplates specific measures to level the playing field field--one one such measure being the provision of a scribe.
6.8 Word "Long term" has not been defined in the Act. "Long-term"
term" is a term that describes a period of time that is longer than the short term. There is no universally agreed--upon upon definition of the term. As a result, it is important to consider the context in which the word is used and to understand the specif specific ic meaning that is intended.
6.9 In accordance with Section 17 of the Act, specific measures shall be undertaken to promote and facilitate inclusive education, thereby advancing the objectives of the Act. To this end, the appropriate government and local aauthorities uthorities are mandated to take the following measures in furtherance of the provisions outlined in Section 16, namely:--
namely:
(i) to make suitable modifications in the curriculum and examination system to meet the needs of students with disabilities such as extra time for completion of examination paper, facility of scribe or amanuensis, exemption from second and third language courses courses
(k) any other measures, as may be required.
6.9 It cannot be the respondent's contention that, under no circumstances, a person with less than 40% disability and experiencing difficulty in writing is ineligible to avail the facility of a scribe or or reader. The purpose of providing a scribe is to support candidates with physical limitations that impair their ability to 10 write, including reduced writing speed--concerns speed concerns which the applicant has already brought to the authority's attention through a forma formal representation.
In all such cases where the use of a scribe is permitted, the following broad guidelines shall apply:
(i) The use of a scribe will be permitted in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Social Justic Justicee and Empowerment, Department of Disability Affairs, vide Office Memorandum F. No. 16 16-110/2003--
DD.III dated 26.02.2013, and subsequent clarifications issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, vide letters F. No. 3/2/2013 3/2/2013-Welfare Welfare dated 26.04.2013, F. No. 29-6/2019-DD-III 29 III dated 10.08.2022, and Office Memorandum dated 01.08.2025.
(ii) The candidate shall be responsible for arranging their own scribe at their own expense.
(iii) Both the candidate and the scribe must submit a suitable undertaking, as per Appendix II of the Act, in the prescribed format, along with a passport passport-sized sized photograph of the scribe. The undertaking must confirm that the scribe meets all the stipulated eligibility criteria. If it is later found that either the ca candidate ndidate or the scribe has provided false information or failed to meet the required criteria, the candidature of the applicant shall be cancelled, regardless of the examination result.
(iv) Any false information provided by the candidate or the scribe in tthe he declaration form at any stage of the examination process will result in both being debarred--either either permanently or for a specified period period--from from appearing in future examinations.
11
(v) The scribe arranged by the candidate must not be a candidate appearing fo forr the same online examination. If such a violation is detected at any stage, the candidature of both the candidate and the scribe will be cancelled.
(vi) A scribe appointed by the candidate must not serve as a scribe for any other candidate in the same examination.
examination. If such duplication is found, the candidature of both candidates may be cancelled, and the scribe may be debarred from acting as a scribe in future examinations.
(vii) Any candidate who is not eligible to use a scribe as per the applicable guidelines lines but still avails the service will be disqualified from further participation in the recruitment process. Candidates using a scribe must ensure they are eligible to do so as per the stated guidelines. Violation of these norms will lead to disqualification tion and, if the candidate has already joined the organization, termination from service without notice.
(viii) In the case of candidates with less than 40% disability who experience difficulty in writing and choose to use a scribe under Office Memorandum F. No. 29-6/2019-DD-III III dated 10.08.2022, the scribe's qualification must be one level below that of the candidate. Relevant documentation, as per the aforementioned Office Memorandum, must be submitted at the time of the examination.
(ix) At any stage during during the examination, if it is observed that the scribe is independently answering questions, the examination session will be terminated, and the candidate's candidature will be cancelled. Even if such misconduct is reported post-examination examination by the test administrator, administrator, the candidate's result will be invalidated.
126.10. In the judgment delivered in Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission,, [(2021) 5 SCC 370 : (2021) 2 SCC (L&S) 1], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 63, made the following observation observation:-
"63. In the specific context of disability, the principle of reasonable accommodation postulates that the conditions which exclude the disabled from full and effective participation as equal members of society have to give way to an accommodative society w which hich accepts difference, respects their needs and facilitates the creation of an environment in which the societal barriers to disability are progressively answered. Accommodation implies a positive obligation to create conditions conducive to the growth aand nd fulfilment of the disabled in every aspect of their existence -- whether as students, members of the workplace, participants in governance or, on a personal plane, in realising the fulfilling privacies of family life. The accommodation which the law mandates mandates is "reasonable" because it has to be tailored to the requirements of each condition of disability. The expectations which every disabled person has are unique to the nature of the disability and the character of the impediments which are encountered as a its consequence."
The judgment also established that individuals with writer's cramp are entitled to the use of a scribe in competitive examinations such as the Civil Services Examination (CSE), in order to uphold their rights to non non-discrimination discrimination and reasonable easonable accommodation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The ruling affirmed that, even though writer's cramp may not qualify as a "benchmark disability" under the Act, it nonetheless requires reasonable accommodations to ensure equal equal opportunity. The Court underscored the importance of disability awareness and the need for examination authorities to adopt a sensitive and inclusive approach in such cases. 6.11. While it is acknowledged that the facility of a scribe is generally rese reserved rved for candidates with specified disabilities supported by a valid disability certificate, and not for temporary impairments such as a hand fracture, it cannot be denied that, in the peculiar facts of the present case, an exception is warranted. The cert certificate ificate 13 issued by the Civil Surgeon--an Surgeon an expert in the matter matter--clearly clearly substantiates the applicant's medical condition. Therefore, the applicant ought not to be denied the benefit of a scribe solely on the ground that her disability is temporary and not of a long-term term nature. Notably, the medical condition and the surgery undergone are not in dispute.
7. CONCLUSION :
7.1. In view of the foregoing discussions, and considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the present Original Application is allowed.
Respondent No. 2 is directed to permit the applicant to use a scribe and avail compensatory time for for writing the examination for the post of TGT (Natural Science) under Post Code 806/24, subject to strict compliance with the guidelines outlined in paragraph 6.9 above.
7.2. Pending M.A.s, if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.
Dr. Anand S Khati Manish Garg Member (A) Member (J) /sb/