Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Nitesh Meena vs Union Public Service Commission on 2 December, 2025
1
Item No.46/ Court-IV O.A. No.3829/2025
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.3829/2025
Order reserved on 20.11.2025
Order pronounced on 02.12.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
NITESH MEENA
VILLAGE GADI MOSMABAD POST DEHRA
DISTRICT KARAULI HINDAUN CITY,
K.ARAULI RAJASTHAN (322230)
...Applicant
(By Advocates: Mr. Rahul Bajaj with Mr. Amritesh
Mishra and Ms. Sarah)
Versus
1. THE SECRETARY
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
DHOLPUR HOUSE, SHAHJAHAN ROAD,
DELHI-110069
2. SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PG AND PENSIONS
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI
3. SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
NIRMAN BHAWAN, NEW DELHI- 110011
4. SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF EMPOWERMENT OF PERSONS
WITH DISABILITIES
SNEHA
SNEHA MEENA
2025.12.10
MEENA 15:01:46+05'30'
2
Item No.46/ Court-IV O.A. No.3829/2025
MINISTRY OF SOCIAL WSTICE &
EMPOWERMENT
5TH FLOOR, ANTYODAYA BHAWAN, COO
COMPLEX
LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI 110003
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr. S M Zulfiqar Alam for UPSC;
Mr. Jalaj Agarwal, Sr. CGSC for R-
2, 3 and 4)
SNEHA
SNEHA MEENA
2025.12.10
MEENA 15:01:46+05'30'
3
Item No.46/ Court-IV O.A. No.3829/2025
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant made a statement that he does not wish to file any rejoinder. Therefore, the matter was taken up for final hearing with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2. In the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"8.1 Set aside the advertisement bearing No. 08/2025 issued by respondent No. 1 to the extent that it excludes persons with both limbs affected from applying for the post of Specialist Grade III Assistant Professor in Radio Diagnosis in the reserved Locomotor Disability category.
8.2 Direct Respondent No. 4 to identify the post of Specialist Grade III Assistant Professor in Radio Diagnosis as being suitable for persons with Locomotor Disability with both limbs affected.
8.3 Direct Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to collectively work out the reasonable accommodations needed by persons with Locomotor Disability with both limbs affected for the post of Specialist Officer Grade III - Assistant Professor in Radio-Diagnosis and to give effect to the same."
3. Brief facts of the case as narrated by learned counsel for the applicant are as under:-
SNEHA SNEHA MEENA 2025.12.10 MEENA 15:01:46+05'30' 4 Item No.46/ Court-IV O.A. No.3829/2025 3.1 The present Original Application arises out of an arbitrary and unjustified exclusion of persons with locomotor disability, both legs affected (BL), from the post of Specialist Grade III Assistant Professor (Radio-Diagnosis) advertised by Respondent No. 1 under Advertisement No. 08/2025, Vacancy No. 25060824128. It is submitted that this exclusion not only lacks any functional or statutory basis but also results in the complete denial of the applicant's constitutional and statutory rights under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
3.2 The applicant is a highly qualified medical professional with an established record of academic excellence and functional competence. She is a 70% locomotor-disabled person, suffering from Post Polio Residual Paralysis of both lower limbs, a disability of permanent nature duly certified by the competent Medical Board at Safdarjung Hospital. Despite this physical condition, she has consistently demonstrated her capability to perform all SNEHA SNEHA MEENA 2025.12.10 MEENA 15:01:46+05'30' 5 Item No.46/ Court-IV O.A. No.3829/2025 academic, clinical and teaching duties required in the specialty of Radio-Diagnosis.
3.3 It is submitted that the applicant completed her MBBS degree in 2019 from the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences and subsequently earned her Doctor of Medicine (Radio-Diagnosis) degree in 2023 from the University of Delhi. More importantly, a specialised three-member medical board at VMMC/Safdarjung issued a disability certificate specifically declaring her eligible to pursue medical education, which is an unequivocal medical acknowledgment of her functional capacity.
3.4 Learned counsel submitted that, following her post-graduation, the applicant served as a Senior Resident (Radio-Diagnosis) at Lady Hardinge Medical College/MOHFW from 08.06.2022 to 07.06.2025. During this period, she not only performed but excelled in all responsibilities entrusted to a Senior Resident such as teaching undergraduate and postgraduate students, conducting and interpreting diagnostic imaging across all major modalities (USG, CT, MRI, SNEHA SNEHA MEENA 2025.12.10 MEENA 15:01:46+05'30' 6 Item No.46/ Court-IV O.A. No.3829/2025 Fluoroscopy, X-Ray), performing night duties, engaging in academic discussions, and contributing to research work. The duties of a Senior Resident, it is submitted, are functionally identical to those of the advertised post of Assistant Professor. Hence, any assertion that a BL candidate is unsuitable for the post is demonstrably incorrect and contradicted by the applicant's own professional history.
3.5 Learned counsel submitted that when the applicant attempted to apply for the post under the correct disability sub-category (BL), the UPSC online portal immediately rejected her application with the pop-up message:
"Sorry! You are not PwBD suitable for this post."
3.6 This was solely because the advertisement, while reserving one vacancy for PwBD candidates under locomotor disability, restricted eligibility to:
"One leg affected (OL), Leprosy Cured, Dwarfism, Acid Attack Victims, Spinal Deformity, Spinal Injury without neurological dysfunction..."
The advertisement completely omitted "both legs affected (BL)", thereby arbitrarily excluding the applicant from even applying for the post. Learned SNEHA SNEHA MEENA 2025.12.10 MEENA 15:01:46+05'30' 7 Item No.46/ Court-IV O.A. No.3829/2025 counsel further submitted that due to the impending deadline and absence of any response from UPSC or MOHFW, the applicant was compelled to apply under the "OL" category purely to ensure her participation in the selection process. She immediately informed UPSC via a detailed e-mail on 17.07.2025, clearly recording that she was forced to misclassify her disability due to the arbitrary non- identification of the BL category. In law, it is well settled that there is no estoppel against statute, and the applicant cannot be penalised for an error she was compelled to make due to an illegal administrative act.
3.7 Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned exclusion is contrary to the mandate of Sections 33 and 34 of the RPwD Act, which require the appropriate Government to:
• identify posts suitable for each category of disability through expert committees, • permit reservation for locomotor disability as a whole, and SNEHA SNEHA MEENA 2025.12.10 MEENA 15:01:46+05'30' 8 Item No.46/ Court-IV O.A. No.3829/2025 • undertake a functional assessment, not a mechanical medical categorisation.
3.8 It is submitted that no material has been placed on record by any respondent to demonstrate that an expert committee has ever found BL candidates unsuitable for the post of Assistant Professor (Radio-Diagnosis). The absence of such material is fatal to the impugned exclusion.
3.9 Learned counsel submitted that the Gazette Notification dated 04.01.2021 issued by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities makes it abundantly clear that the notified list of identified posts is:
"illustrative and not exhaustive."
3.10 Thus, non-mention of BL cannot operate as a ground for exclusion. Identification must be interpreted liberally and functionally to advance the objectives of the RPwD Act rather than restrict opportunities.
3.11 Learned counsel emphasized that the same Gazette Notification contains two vital directions:
SNEHA SNEHA MEENA 2025.12.10 MEENA 15:01:46+05'30' 9 Item No.46/ Court-IV O.A. No.3829/2025 Note 4:
"If a post is identified in the feeder grade, all posts in the promotional grade should also stand identified."
Note 5:
"If a post having identical nature and place of job with respect to any identified post, the post should be construed to be identified even if the post has a different nomenclature an/or placed in a different group."
3.12 It is submitted that the applicant has already worked in the feeder grade, Senior Residency, for three years and has discharged identical duties. Therefore, by virtue of Notes 4 and 5, the post of Assistant Professor is deemed to be identified for the BL category.
3.13 Further, UPSC itself, in its own Advertisement No. 06/2025, has identified the post of Specialist Grade III (Radio-Diagnosis), a post functionally identical to the one at issue, for the BL category. Additionally, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) has also identified the very same post for BL candidates. These inconsistencies highlight that the impugned exclusion has no functional or medical basis and appears to be a SNEHA SNEHA MEENA 2025.12.10 MEENA 15:01:46+05'30' 10 Item No.46/ Court-IV O.A. No.3829/2025 clear case of administrative oversight or mechanical categorization.
3.14 Learned counsel submitted that the respondents have failed to conduct any reasonable accommodation analysis as mandated by Section 2(y) of the RPwD Act. Without examining whether minor workplace modifications could facilitate participation, the exclusion of BL candidates is per se illegal.
3.15 Learned counsel finally submitted that the exclusion violates Article 19(1)(g) as it places unreasonable restrictions on the applicant's right to pursue her profession. A qualified medical specialist with impeccable credentials is being prevented from advancing her career solely due to arbitrary administrative action.
3.16 In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the following case laws:-
(i) W.P. (C) No. 9520/2018 titled National Federation of the Blind vs. Kendriya Vidyalaya SNEHA SNEHA MEENA 2025.12.10 MEENA 15:01:46+05'30' 11 Item No.46/ Court-IV O.A. No.3829/2025 Sangathan & Ors., dated 16.10.2023 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The relevant portion of the said judgment, reads as under:
"38. The petitioner's submission that the post of Vice- Principal is a feeder grade post to the post of Principal, which is a promotional post after the post of Vice-Principal, also holds merit. Note 4 annexed with the aforesaid notification is relevant in this regard and the same is reproduced thus:
'Note 4: If a post is identified in the feeder grade, all the posts in the promotional grade should also stand identified.' The above note makes it clear that the post of Principal, being a post in the promotional grade, stands automatically identified for reservation as the post of Vice-Principal is identified. Although reference to Note 4 is not required as the post of Principal is expressly identified by the Central Government. Note
4 would come into play in case a promotional grade is not identified but the feeder post is identified. Be that as it may, it is indicative of the fact that the post of Principal could not be excluded on any parameter."
(ii) Commercial Taxation Officer, Udaipur vs. Rajasthan Taxchem Ltd., (2007) 3 SCC 124 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The relevant paragraph reads as under:
"22. We have already extracted the definition of raw material under Section 2(34) which specifically includes fuel required for the purpose of manufacture as raw material. The word 'includes' gives a wider meaning to the words or phrases in the Statute. The word 'includes' is usually used in the interpretation clause in order to enlarge the meaning of the words in the statute. When the word 'includes' is used in the words or phrases, it must be construed as comprehending not only such things as they signify according to their nature and impact but also those SNEHA SNEHA MEENA 2025.12.10 MEENA 15:01:46+05'30' 12 Item No.46/ Court-IV O.A. No.3829/2025 things which the interpretation clause declares they shall include. There is no dispute in the instant case that the diesel and lubricant is used to generate electricity through DG sets which is admittedly used for the purpose of manufacturing yarn. Thus, it is seen that as diesel is specifically and intentionally included in the definition of raw material by the legislature, the question whether it is directly or indirectly used in the process of manufacture is irrelevant as argued by Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain."
(iii) Sansar Chand Atri vs. State of Punjab and another, (2002) 4 SCC 154 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
4. Opposing the grant of relief, Mr. Jalaj Aggarwal, Sr. CGSC appearing on behalf of respondents reiterated the averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted as under:
4.1 The applicant has no legal right to seek consideration under a disability category which has not been identified as suitable for the post of Specialist Grade-III Assistant Professor (Radio-
Diagnosis). It is submitted that the respondents have acted strictly in accordance with the RPwD Act, the DGHS recommendations, and the binding identification issued by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPwD), and therefore, the present OA is devoid of merit.
SNEHA
SNEHA MEENA
2025.12.10
MEENA 15:01:46+05'30'
13
Item No.46/ Court-IV O.A. No.3829/2025
4.2 The Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, vide requisition dated 27.03.2025, forwarded the vacancy details to UPSC along with the suitability requirements for PwBD candidates. These suitability criteria were not decided by UPSC but by the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) through its recommendation dated 19.03.2024, which specifically identified the post as suitable only for One Leg affected (OL), Leprosy Cured (LC), Dwarfism (DW), Acid Attack Victims (AAV), Spinal Deformity (SD) without neurological dysfunction, and Spinal Injury (SI) without neurological dysfunction. It is emphasized that "Both Legs Affected (BL)" was not included in the suitability list. 4.3 On this basis, UPSC issued Advertisement No. 08/2025 faithfully reproducing the same identification, without addition or modification. Learned counsel submitted that when the applicant attempted to apply under the BL category, the UPSC portal correctly displayed the message "Sorry! You are not PwBD suitable for this post", because BL was not one of the identified categories. The system SNEHA SNEHA MEENA 2025.12.10 MEENA 15:01:46+05'30' 14 Item No.46/ Court-IV O.A. No.3829/2025 functioned exactly as intended and prevented ineligible candidates from applying under unsuitable categories.
4.4 It is further submitted that the DEPwD Notification dated 04.01.2021, which is the principal and binding notification issued after the Expert Committee's deliberations, also identifies this post as suitable only for OL, LC, DW, AAV, SD (without neurological dysfunction), and SI (without neurological dysfunction). BL is conspicuously absent from the list of suitable sub-categories. The notification expressly stated that the Expert Committee finalized the identification and that this list shall be the authoritative one, and also clarified that Ministries cannot suo motu add or alter disability categories.
4.5 In this context, the applicant's argument based on individual capability, past performance, or subjective functional ability cannot override the binding statutory identification. Suitability is determined at the level of the disability category as a whole, not on an individualized basis. The SNEHA SNEHA MEENA 2025.12.10 MEENA 15:01:46+05'30' 15 Item No.46/ Court-IV O.A. No.3829/2025 applicant's subsequent act of applying under the OL category, despite admittedly belonging to the BL category, cannot cure the ineligibility, nor can it confer any right upon her. Eligibility must exist under the correct category on the last date of application.
4.6 The respondents have strictly followed the requisition, the DGHS recommendation, the DEPwD notification, and the UPSC advertisement, without any deviation. No arbitrariness or discrimination can be attributed to the respondents, as they are bound by the identification prescribed under Section 33 of the RPwD Act and cannot extend it to categories not declared suitable by the expert authorities.
4.7 In these circumstances, it is submitted that the applicant is not eligible under the notified disability categories for the post, and therefore the Original Application deserves to be dismissed.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents, UPSC, reiterated the averments made in the counter SNEHA SNEHA MEENA 2025.12.10 MEENA 15:01:46+05'30' 16 Item No.46/ Court-IV O.A. No.3829/2025 affidavit and submitted that the present Original Application is wholly misconceived as the Commission has acted strictly within the four corners of the requisition received from the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare and the applicable Recruitment Rules. It is submitted at the outset that UPSC has no role whatsoever in identifying or modifying disability sub-categories; it merely conducts recruitment in accordance with the parameters prescribed by the indenting Ministry. 5.1 Learned counsel submitted that UPSC received a requisition on 28.03.2025 from the Ministry for filling 26 posts of Specialist Grade-III Assistant Professor (Radio-Diagnosis), which included one backlog vacancy for PwBD. The requisition was accompanied by an Annexure specifying the suitability and reservation details of PwBD sub- categories as determined by the Ministry based on the functional requirements of the post. The suitability chart clearly indicated that for locomotor disability, only the following sub-categories were suitable and reserved: "OL - One leg affected (R or SNEHA SNEHA MEENA 2025.12.10 MEENA 15:01:46+05'30' 17 Item No.46/ Court-IV O.A. No.3829/2025 L), LC - Leprosy Cured, DW - Dwarfism, AAV - Acid Attack Victims, SD - Spinal Deformity without neurological/limb dysfunction, and SI - Spinal Injury without neurological/limb dysfunction." The chart simultaneously recorded "BL - Both legs affected but not arms" as 'No' for suitability and 'No' for reservation. Accordingly, UPSC issued Advertisement No. 08/2025 on 28.06.2025 strictly reproducing the suitability criteria as received. Learned counsel submitted that when the applicant attempted to apply under the "Both Legs Affected (BL)" category, the online system rightly displayed the message "Sorry! You are not PwBD suitable for this post," because BL was not one of the eligible sub-categories. The system is designed to adhere precisely to the requisitioned parameters; UPSC cannot override, alter, or expand any disability category.
5.2 Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the applicant admittedly suffers from post-polio residual paralysis of both lower limbs with 70% disability, placing her only in the BL SNEHA SNEHA MEENA 2025.12.10 MEENA 15:01:46+05'30' 18 Item No.46/ Court-IV O.A. No.3829/2025 category. Since BL was not included in the suitability list received from the Ministry, the system naturally did not permit submission under BL. The applicant then chose to apply under "One Leg Affected (OL)", a category which she does not belong to. This misclassification, whether deliberate or claimed to be compelled, cannot create any entitlement in her favour, as eligibility must exist as on the last date under the correct disability category.
5.3 Learned counsel submitted that the identification of suitable posts for PwBDs and the determination of reservation for sub-categories is exclusively the domain of the Ministry/Department concerned, acting in consultation with the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPwD). UPSC is only a recruiting agency and cannot modify suitability criteria post- advertisement. Any grievance regarding the non- inclusion of the BL category lies against the Ministry or DEPwD, not UPSC.
SNEHA
SNEHA MEENA
2025.12.10
MEENA 15:01:46+05'30'
19
Item No.46/ Court-IV O.A. No.3829/2025
5.4 Learned counsel also submitted that the
advertisement issued by UPSC was in complete conformity with (i) the requisition, (ii) the RPwD Act, 2016, (iii) Government notifications identifying suitable posts, and (iv) the Recruitment Rules. There is no arbitrariness, discrimination, or illegality attributable to the Commission. The reliefs sought, such as setting aside the advertisement to the extent of excluding the BL category, or directing identification of the post for BL, cannot be issued against UPSC, which neither possesses such authority nor played any role in determining those aspects.
5.5 In these circumstances, learned counsel for UPSC submitted that the Original Application is devoid of merit, the Commission has acted strictly in accordance with law and the requisitioned parameters, and the OA deserves to be dismissed.
6. In rejoinder to the arguments put forth by learned counsel for the respondent, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the Gazette Notification dated 04.01.2021 issued by the SNEHA SNEHA MEENA 2025.12.10 MEENA 15:01:46+05'30' 20 Item No.46/ Court-IV O.A. No.3829/2025 Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities makes it abundantly clear that the notified list of identified posts is:
"illustrative and not exhaustive."
7. Heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the material on record.
8. ANALYSIS :
8.1 The moot question before us is whether the respondents, while issuing the advertisement, were legally justified in excluding the Both Legs Affected (BL) locomotor disability category from consideration for the post in question.
8.2 The applicant's benchmark disability squarely falls within the category of specified disability as defined in the Schedule to the RPwD Act, 2016 [clause (zc) of section 2]. The 2016 Act mandates an inclusive interpretation of disability, not an exclusionary one.
8.3 The respondents have sought to justify the exclusion of the BL category by relying on the SNEHA SNEHA MEENA 2025.12.10 MEENA 15:01:46+05'30' 21 Item No.46/ Court-IV O.A. No.3829/2025 recommendation of a Committee that did not include BL as suitable for the post. Upon examination, we note that this Committee consisted of only two members, both specialists in Radiology. Such a Committee cannot be regarded as an expert body competent to determine whether candidates with BL locomotor disability ought to be excluded from reservation or suitability for the post. No reasons have been assigned by the Committee for excluding BL from the list of suitable categories. There is also no material demonstrating that persons with BL locomotor disability are incapable of meeting the functional requirements of the post. A proper assessment should have involved an expert in the field of locomotor disabilities to justify the respondents' stand in denying the benefit to the BL category. Furthermore, we would highlight certain relevant Sections of the RPwD Act, 2016, which reads as under:
Section 3. of the Act provides for Equality and non-discrimination.--(1) The appropriate Government shall ensure that the persons with disabilities enjoy the right to equality, life with dignity SNEHA SNEHA MEENA 2025.12.10 MEENA 15:01:46+05'30' 22 Item No.46/ Court-IV O.A. No.3829/2025 and respect for his or her integrity equally with others.
(2) The appropriate Government shall take steps to utilise the capacity of persons with disabilities by providing appropriate environment.
(3) No person with disability shall be discriminated on the ground of disability, unless it is shown that the impugned act or omission is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. (4) No person shall be deprived of his or her personal liberty only on the ground of disability.
(5) The appropriate Government shall take necessary steps to ensure reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities.
Section 20 deals with Non-discrimination in employment.--(1) No Government establishment shall discriminate against any person with disability in any matter relating to employment:
Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section.
(2) Every Government establishment shall provide reasonable accommodation and appropriate barrier free and conducive environment to employees with disability.
(3) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of disability.
(4) No Government establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his or her service:
Provided that, if an employee after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, shall be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits:
Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier.
SNEHA
SNEHA MEENA
2025.12.10
MEENA 15:01:46+05'30'
23
Item No.46/ Court-IV O.A. No.3829/2025
(5) The appropriate Government may frame policies for posting and transfer of employees with disabilities.
Section 21 Speaks of Equal opportunity policy.-- (1) Every establishment shall notify equal opportunity policy detailing measures proposed to be taken by it in pursuance of the provisions of this Chapter in the manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
(2) Every establishment shall register a copy of the said policy with the Chief Commissioner or the State Commissioner, as the case may be.
8.4 A plain reading of the above statutory provisions makes it evident that the respondents' decision to exclude the BL category strikes at the very root of Sections 20 and 21 of the RPwD Act, 2016, which embody the principles of equality, non-discrimination, and equal opportunity. Benefits cannot be denied, nor barriers created, without a functional assessment of the post and without obtaining the considered opinion of experts in the field of specified disabilities. The respondents' entire case rests on the recommendation of an Expert Committee; however, the Committee lacked any expert in locomotor disabilities, whose involvement was essential. In the absence of such expert assessment, the decision to exclude the BL category is legally unsustainable.
SNEHA
SNEHA MEENA
2025.12.10
MEENA 15:01:46+05'30'
24
Item No.46/ Court-IV O.A. No.3829/2025
8.5 It is undisputed that the applicant served as a Senior Resident (Radio-Diagnosis) at Lady Hardinge Medical College/MOHFW from 08.06.2022 to 07.06.2025. During this tenure, she not only performed but excelled in all the responsibilities expected of a Senior Resident such as teaching undergraduate and postgraduate students, conducting and interpreting diagnostic imaging across all modalities (USG, CT, MRI, Fluoroscopy, X-Ray), performing night duties, participating in academic deliberations, and contributing to research. The responsibilities of a Senior Resident are, in fact, functionally identical to those of the advertised post of Assistant Professor. Therefore, any contention that a BL candidate is unsuitable for the post stands contradicted by the applicant's demonstrated professional competence. Such competence cannot be disregarded when determining whether she could have been reasonably accommodated.
8.6 The applicant is already working as a Senior Resident, which constitutes the feeder grade for the promotional post within the teaching faculty hierarchy.
SNEHA
SNEHA MEENA
2025.12.10
MEENA 15:01:46+05'30'
25
Item No.46/ Court-IV O.A. No.3829/2025
This position is deemed to be a feeder category in terms of Note 4 of the notification dated 04.01.2021 issued by the nodal Ministry, namely, the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities. Note 4 is consistent with Note No. 7, which reinforces that once a feeder post is identified, the corresponding promotional post must also be treated as identified. 8.7. In I.A. No. 130117 of 2018 in Civil Appeal No. 11938 of 2016, Reena Banerjee and Another v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Others, decided on 12.09.2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
33. In a recent pronouncement in *Kabir Paharia v. National Medical Commission & Ors.*9, this Court reiterated the constitutional and statutory mandate to dismantle arbitrary barriers imposed on persons with disabilities, particularly in access to higher education and professional opportunities. The petitioner therein, being a person with a benchmark disability, challenged the denial of admission to the MBBS course on the ground that the statutory regulations failed to reasonably accommodate his disability. This Court held that administrative authorities had applied the eligibility criteria in a rigid and exclusionary manner, and in doing so, had failed to uphold the letter and spirit of the RPwD Act. This Court disregarded the formalistic and medically reductionist approaches to disability and emphasised that institutions cannot rely on outdated or non-individualised assessments to deny access to fundamental rights. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced below:
"15. The constitutional promise of equality is not merely formal but substantive, requiring the State to SNEHA SNEHA MEENA 2025.12.10 MEENA 15:01:46+05'30' 26 Item No.46/ Court-IV O.A. No.3829/2025 take affirmative measures to ensure that PwD and PwBD can meaningfully participate in all spheres of life, including professional education. We emphasize that reasonable accommodation is not a matter of charity but a fundamental right flowing from Articles 14, 16, and 21 of our Constitution. When administrative authorities create arbitrary barriers that exclude qualified PwBD candidates, they not only violate statutory provisions but also perpetuate the historical injustice and stigmatisation. The fundamental rights and the dignity of PwD and PwBD candidates must be protected by ensuring that assessment of their capabilities is individualised, evidence-based, and free from stereotypical assumptions that have no scientific foundation."
34. The above case stands as a reminder that inclusive education requires administrative flexibility, empathetic assessment, and legal sensitivity to the evolving concept of equality for persons with disabilities. It highlights how systemic barriers, when codified through administrative regulations or institutional inertia, can deny full participation and constitutional personhood to individuals with disabilities. In State-run care institution settings such as Asha Kiran Home, the absence of individualised care plans, educational assessments, and therapeutic support replicates this very exclusion in a more severe and structural form. Kabir Paharia (supra) affirms that such denials are not merely administrative lapses but constitutional wrongs demanding active redress.
35. Taking into consideration the above-discussed framework and rights-based jurisprudence of this Court, it is clear that our constitutional courts have consistently read the rights of persons with disabilities into the broader constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 14 has been expanded to include substantive equality, requiring not only equal treatment but also reasonable accommodation and removal of systemic barriers. Article 19, particularly the right to freedom of expression and movement, has been interpreted to mandate accessible formats, transport, and communication. Article 21 anchors the right to life with dignity, recognising that dignity is not a privilege but an entitlement, especially for those who are institutionally marginalised. The present case, concerning the implementation of the RPwD Act along with the prolonged institutionalisation and lack of access to education, health, and community life for persons residing in State-run care institution/homes, must therefore be viewed through this expansive constitutional lens. The proposed monitoring and SNEHA SNEHA MEENA 2025.12.10 MEENA 15:01:46+05'30' 27 Item No.46/ Court-IV O.A. No.3829/2025 assessment must not be limited to administrative compliance but must engage with the question of whether institutional structures respect the autonomy, equality, and dignity of persons with disabilities as guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.
G. Direction(s) and Conclusion: -
36. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant/s sought the appointment of the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru, to undertake a nationwide monitoring of all State-run care institutions housing persons with cognitive disabilities. We are of the firm opinion that the task of nationwide monitoring ought to be distributed across different regions of the country for greater reach and oversight so as to be effective. Accordingly, we hereby direct that the monitoring be undertaken under the name and style of the "Project Ability Empowerment" and shall be undertaken by eight National Law Universities each covering specific States and/or Union Territories...."
9. CONCLUSION :
9.1. In view of the foregoing facts and legal discussion, the OA is allowed in the following terms:
(i) The applicant is permitted to participate in the selection process, and her application for the post of Specialist Grade III Assistant Professor in Radio Diagnosis in the reserved Locomotor Disability category shall be accepted on a provisional basis.
(ii) Upon declaration of results, if the applicant is found to be eligible on merit and meets all other eligibility criteria, Respondent No. 4 is directed to constitute a Committee of Experts in the field of locomotor disability SNEHA SNEHA MEENA 2025.12.10 MEENA 15:01:46+05'30' 28 Item No.46/ Court-IV O.A. No.3829/2025 within forty-five days. The Committee shall include at least two members specialized in the field and shall act in consultation with the Ministry of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities. The Committee shall determine whether the post of Specialist Grade III Assistant Professor in Radio Diagnosis is suitable for persons with locomotor disability affecting both limbs and whether the applicant can be reasonably accommodated in the said post.
(iii) Based on the recommendations of the Expert Committee and if the applicant is found suitable, she shall be offered appointment to the post of Specialist Grade III - Assistant Professor in Radio-Diagnosis within forty-five days thereafter.
9.2. Pending M.A.s, if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.
(Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/sm/as/
SNEHA
SNEHA MEENA
2025.12.10
MEENA 15:01:46+05'30'