Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Nitin Kumar vs M/O Railways on 12 January, 2026
1
Item No.85/ C-IV O.A. No.2066/2024
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
O.A. No.2066/2024
This the 12th day of January, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
Nitin Kumar S/o Sh. Ishwar Singh, Roll No.
174191170015498 age 30 years, R/o E AVAS VIKAS
Second, Bulandhar, U.P. -203001
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. B K Barera)
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of
Railway, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi
2. The Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board Cell,
Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi-24
3 General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House,
New Delhi
...Respondents
(By Advocates : Mr. Varun Vats)
Date:
SNEHA 2026.01.15
MEENA 14:38:28+
05'30'
2
Item No.85/ C-IV O.A. No.2066/2024
ORDER (ORAL)
By Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) In the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant seeks the following reliefs:-
"(a) Quash the notice dated 02-02-2024 Informing 'You have cleared the Cut-off for merit but suitable post as per your medical category is not available'as number of vacancies are available in LD Category.
(b) direction to respondents to Consider the case of the Applicant in accordance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 giving the applicant Reasonable accommodation/opportunity as per law settled by the Apex court in Vikash Kumar vs U.P.S.C (supra)
(c) Any other order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit under the present facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Learned counsel for the applicant is seeking appropriate relief on the ground that the respondents have failed to consider the case of the applicant in accordance with the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a person with disability and was entitled to the benefit of reasonable accommodation, which has not been granted by the respondents. It is contended that the action of the respondents is contrary to the statutory mandate of the Rights of Date:
SNEHA 2026.01.15 MEENA 14:38:28+ 05'30' 3 Item No.85/ C-IV O.A. No.2066/2024 Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vikas Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission & Ors., (2021) 5 SCC 370, wherein it has been held that denial of reasonable accommodation amounts to discrimination and violates the rights guaranteed under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. He further draws attention to an office order dated 16.12.2024, which is reproduced herein below:
"Board have reviewed the position of empanelment status of Level-1 Vacancies against various categories notified under CEN RRC 01/2019 and decided as follows:
(i) Candidates who have already been called for DV will be accommodated first by reserving vacancies for them.
(ii) No fresh DV will be initiated.
(ii) Railways may be advised to divert unfilled vacancies to lower medical categories only to the extent of availability (Column D) which is enclosed as Annexure.
(iv) Railways will empanel the remaining B2-C1 candidates in the order of merit from the main result against available vacancies by diverting them to Assistant (Workshop), Assistant TL&AC (Workshop) and Assistant Works (Workshop) and send the number of remaining candidates (Community-wise) to the Railway Board.
Date:
SNEHA 2026.01.15 MEENA 14:38:28+ 05'30' 4 Item No.85/ C-IV O.A. No.2066/2024
(v) Zonal Railways which don't have remaining B2-C1 candidates are advised to divert their available vacancies in all medical categories to notified lower medical category posts in the workshops. These railways will thereafter, advise the Board the availability of vacancies (community wise) after diversion to the aforementioned categories.
2. Urgent necessary action may please be taken as above and outcome reported to this office."
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the Original Application and reiterates the averments made in the counter affidavit. He submits that the Recruitment Rules are mandatory in nature.
It is argued that no vacancy has been notified under the relevant reserved category and, therefore, the applicant cannot be suitably accommodated.
6. We have heard learned counsel for both parties and pursued the records of the case.
7. We refer to a recent direction rendered in I.A.No(S). 130117 Of 2018 In Civil Appeal No(S).
11938 Of 2016 titled Reena Banerjee And Another Vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Others decided on 12.09.2025 by the Hon'ble Apex Court thus reads :
"33. In a recentpronouncement in Kabir Paharia v. National Medical Commission & Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1025, 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, Date:
SNEHA 2026.01.15 MEENA 14:38:28+ 05'30' 5 Item No.85/ C-IV O.A. No.2066/2024 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 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.
Date:
SNEHA 2026.01.15 MEENA 14:38:28+ 05'30' 6 Item No.85/ C-IV O.A. No.2066/2024
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 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.
8. We are of the view that the present Original Application can be disposed of by directing the respondents to treat this OA as a representation and Date:
SNEHA 2026.01.15 MEENA 14:38:28+ 05'30' 7 Item No.85/ C-IV O.A. No.2066/2024 consider the case of the applicant in terms of the aforesaid judgment and Circular dated 16.12.2024, and to dispose of the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of forty-five (45) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. In the event the office order is passed in favour of the applicant, the consequential relief(s), if any, shall also follow within a further period of forty-five (45) days thereafter.
9. The OA is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/sm/
Date:
SNEHA 2026.01.15
MEENA 14:38:28+
05'30'