Delhi High Court - Orders
Jerry Lalhratthang Buongpui vs Union Of India & Ors on 24 February, 2026
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~1 and 2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9074/2025, CM APPL. 38607/2025, CM APPL.
45937/2025 and CM APPL. 45969/2025
JERRY LALHRATTHANG BUONGPUI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Raja Choudhary, Ms. Anushika
Mishra, Mr.Dhruv Tiwari and
Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Syed Abdul Haseeb (CGSC) with
Mr. Muhammad Aamir Khan
Advocate.
Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, Mr. Manish
Kumar Singh, Mr. Vasu Agarwal,
Advocates for UPSC
Mr. Puneet Yadav SPC With Vivek
Nagar GP
2
+ W.P.(C) 10105/2025, CM APPL. 42109/2025 and CM APPL.
45893/2025
NISA UNNIRAJAN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Raja Choudhary, Ms. Anushika
Mishra, Mr.Dhruv Tiwari and
Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Syed Abdul Haseeb (CGSC) with
Mr. Muhammad Aamir Khan
Advocate.
Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, Mr. Manish
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:44:29
Kumar Singh, Mr. Vasu Agarwal,
Advocates for UPSC
Mr.Puneet Yadav SPC With Vivek
Nagar GP
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
ORDER
% 24.02.2026
1. The Court vide order dated 06.08.2025 has considered the background under which the petitioners have approached this Court. The Court found that the petitioners shall be subjected to medical examination by an expert medical board having the same constitution as specified in the order passed by the Supreme Court as was noted therein. Accordingly, the medical board was constituted and the petitioners were directed to be re-examined.
2. The order dated 06.08.2025 since has taken the entire background into consideration, therefore, the same is extracted as under:-
"1. W.P.(C) 9074/2025 has been filed by the petitioner, a 29 year old Scheduled Tribe (ST) candidate from Manipur, who has been diagnosed with progressive bilateral sensorineural hearing loss.
2. It is submitted that the petitioner holds a valid Disability Certificate bearing no. MNO310419960009726 (issued by the Issuing Medical Authority, Churachandpur, Manipur) certifying 66% permanent hearing impairment in both ears. The said certification was issued in accordance with the guidelines for assessing the extent of specified disability under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act, 2016), notified by the Government of India vide S.O. 76(E) dated 04.01.2018. The petitioner has also been issued Unique Disability ID (UDID) Card by the Government of India.
3. It is submitted that these documents attest to the petitioner's status as a person with a benchmark disability.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that, despite the aforesaid certification, respondent nos.4 to 6 [Safdarjung Hospital, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), and Army Hospital (Research & Referral) respectively] This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:44:29 have conducted multiple, inconsistent assessments of the petitioner's medical / disability condition. It is submitted that these assessments have resulted in arbitrarily low disability percentages, wholly at variance with the petitioner's duly certified benchmark disability status.
5. It is pointed out that the petitioner successfully cleared Civil Services Examination, 2024 conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), under the PwBD-3 category.
6. Following the results, the petitioner was required to undergo a general medical examination under the Civil Services Examination Rules, 2024 (Rules). It is submitted that contrary to the mandatory provisions under Rule 2(3) of Annexure III, which stipulate that candidates belonging to the Persons with Benchmark Disability (PwBD) category shall be examined exclusively by a Benchmark Disability Expert Panel (BDEP) constituted at AIIMS, New Delhi, the petitioner was examined, in the first instance, at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. It is submitted that the Safdarjung report dated 06.03.2025 recorded that the petitioner suffers from mere 1.3% hearing loss, without providing any audiometric data, diagnostic details, or explanation as to how such a figure was calculated.
7. Subsequently, the petitioner appeared before AIIMS, New Delhi, on 07.03.2025 for a benchmark disability assessment. AIIMS too assessed his hearing impairment at 1.3%, thereby excluding him from eligibility under the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) category. It is submitted that the said finding is in direct contradiction to the Disability Certificate issued by the competent Medical Authority under the RPwD Act, 2016, certifying the petitioner as having 66% bilateral hearing impairment, and further corroborated by the issuance of a Unique Disability ID (UDID) by the Government of India. It is submitted that these documents carry binding legal force unless duly set aside by a competent appellate authority.
8. The petitioner being aggrieved by the report of AIIMS, New Delhi, preferred an appeal on 14.04.2025 through a website namely, cseplus.nic.in before the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT). Subsequently, on 27.04.2025, the petitioner also submitted a formal representation via email to the DoPT, seeking a re-examination of his benchmark disability status. In the said appeal, the petitioner specifically requested that an Auditory Steady-
State Response (ASSR) test be conducted, contending that the earlier testsadministered, namely, Brainstem Evoked Response Audiometry (BERA) or Auditory Brainstem Response (ABR) are not frequency-specific and as widely recognized in audiological science, offer limited accuracy in determining precise hearing thresholds across different frequencies.
9. It is submitted that the absence of frequency-specific testing may have This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:44:29 resulted in underestimation of the petitioner's actual hearing impairment. Pursuant to the said appeal, the petitioner was subjected to a re-evaluation by the Appellate Disability Medical Board (ADMB) at the Army Hospital (Research & Referral), New Delhi, on 13.05.2025 and 14.05.2025. To the petitioner's grave prejudice and dismay, the ADMB opined that the petitioner suffered from only 15% hearing impairment, thereby still placing him below the minimum threshold of 40% required for recognition as a person with benchmark disability under the RPwD Act, 2016.
10. It is pointed out that the petitioner's hearing impairment, which had been recorded by AIIMS just a few months earlier at a mere 1.3%, was now recorded as 15%, without any intervening medical treatment or demonstrable deterioration, thereby, raising serious doubts about the consistency, methodology, and credibility of the assessment procedures followed by both institutions. It is submitted that, despite the petitioner's categorical and repeated request for an ASSR test in the appeal, the same was never conducted, thereby frustrating his legitimate expectation of a fair, objective, and scientifically sound medical evaluation.
11. In the above background, the petitioner is aggrieved by the allegedly conflicting and inconsistent disability assessments.
12. In light of the aforesaid grievance, the present petition has been filed seeking following prayers:-
"1. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to forthwith clarify, affirm, and recognize the Petitioner's legal status as a person with benchmark disability or not, based on valid statutory certification, i.e. the UDID card dated 08.02.2022 issued by the Respondent No. 1 and authoritative medical assessments, and to ensure the protection and enforcement of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 16, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, including his right to life with dignity, equal opportunity, reasonable accommodation and protection from discrimination.
2. Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed just and proper in the interests of justice, equity, and good conscience in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
13. The grievance of the petitioner in W.P.(C) 10105/2025 is in a similar conspectus. The petitioner herein holds a government issued disability certificate confirming 43% hearing loss, along with a UDID card issued under the RPwD Act, 2016.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:44:29
14. Yet, the respondent nos.4 to 6 [Safdarjung Hospital, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), and Army Hospital (Research & Referral) respectively] subjected the petitioner to multiple re-assessments, each yielding conflicting results, with the disability percentage ranging from 14.16% to 30.92%
15. In the circumstances, the following reliefs have been sought:-
"1. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to forthwith clarify, affirm, and recognize the Petitioner's legal status as a person with benchmark disability or not, based on valid statutory certification and authoritative medical assessments, and to ensure the protection and enforcement of her fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 16, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, including her right to life with dignity, equal opportunity, reasonable accommodation and protection from discrimination.
2. Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed just and proper in the interests of justice, equity, and good conscience in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
16. During the course of the hearing, learned counsel for the respective parties have drawn attention to an order dated 28.07.2025 passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (c) No(s). 17995/2025 titled as "Department of Personnel and Training v. Kore Nihal Pramod", wherein, in a somewhat similar conspectus, an expert medical board was directed to be constituted comprising members from three different Institutions, namely, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi; the Central Government Health Services and; the Army Research and Referral Hospital, New Delhi.
17. The operative portion of the said order dated 28.07.2025 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (c) No(s). 17995/2025 is as under:-
"4. Accordingly, a suggestion has been made by the learned ASG that an Expert Medical Board be constituted, comprising members from three different institutions, namely, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi; Central Government Health Scheme and; Army Research and Referral Hospital, New Delhi, to examine the issue and submit a report for consideration by this Court, before a final view is taken in the matter.
xxx xxx xxx
6. Accordingly, let the Board be constituted. The members would be This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:44:29 one to be nominated by the Director of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi; the second member to be nominated by the Director General of the Central Government Health Scheme and; the third member to be nominated by the Chief of the Army Research and Referral Hospital, New Delhi.
7. The Director General of the Central Government Health Scheme shall act as the Nodal Officer to co-ordinate the constitution of the expert Board/Committee, which shall examine the extent and nature of the respondent's hearing disability.
8. The Board/Committee be constituted within two weeks from today.
9. Upon its constitution, the respondent shall be informed and within two weeks thereafter, he shall undergo a physical medical examination by the said Board/Committee.
10. A report shall, thereafter, be submitted by the Board/Committee through the Director General of Central Government Health Scheme in a sealed cover, to be placed before this Court by the learned ASG."
18. In line with the order passed by the Supreme Court, it is directed that the petitioners shall be subjected to medical examination by an expert medical board having the same constitution as specified in paragraph 4 of the aforesaid order passed by the Supreme Court.
19. Accordingly, the medical board shall comprise three members; (i) one to be nominated by the Director of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi; (ii) the second member to be nominated by the Director General of the Central Government Health Services and; (iii) the third member to be nominated by the Chief of the Army Research and Referral Hospital, New Delhi.
20. The concerned Experts nominated to the Board shall be ENT specialists, as the issue relates to hearing impairment.
21. The Director General of the Central Government Health Services shall act as the Nodal Officer to coordinate the constitution of the expert Board/Committee, which shall examine the extent and nature of the petitioners' hearing disability.
22. Let the Board be constituted within a period of two weeks from today. Upon its constitution, the petitioners shall undergo a physical medical examination by the said Board/Committee, as expeditiously as possible.
23. Let the report of the Medical Board be thereafter placed on record in these proceedings, before the next date of hearing.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:44:29
24. List for further consideration on 15.09.2025."
3. Vide order dated 16.12.2025, the Court found that as per the latest assessment conducted by AIIMS, while the audiometric evaluation reflected that the petitioner suffers from 'moderate to severe hearing loss', the ABR (Auditory Brainstem Response) findings do not indicate a disability to the extent suggested by the audiometric evaluation. Dr. Prem Sagar was also consulted and it was noted that the petitioners' disability as assessed on the basis of the ABR findings was only to the extent of 13%, as opposed to the audiometric evaluation which reflected disability to the extent of 66%.
4. The percentage of disability with respect to each of the petitioners may be slightly different; however, the overall position remains the same. The Court, therefore, granted liberty to the petitioner to make submissions.
5. Pursuant thereto, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the written submissions. He has taken various grounds to justify the disabilities of the petitioners and he submits that the comparative evaluation of Pure Tone Audiometry (PTA) and Brainstem Evoked Response Audiometry (BERA) clearly establishes the continued primacy of PTA in hearing disability assessment and the same should be accepted, as it directly measures frequency-specific thresholds at speech critical frequencies and reflects functional hearing loss, making it the internationally and nationally recognized gold standard. In conclusion, he has made following submissions:-
"that the comparative evaluation of Pure Tone Audiometry (PTA) and Brainstem Evoked Response Audiometry (BERA) clearly establishes the continued primacy of PTA in hearing disability assessment. PTA directly measures frequency-specific thresholds at speechcritical frequencies and reflects functional hearing loss, making it the internationally and nationally recognised gold standard. Its statutory acceptance under the This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:44:29 Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and allied guidelines underscores its legal reliability. BERA, by contrast, serves only a supplementary role and does not assess perceptual or speech hearing; moreover, it lacks any prescribed statutory formula for disability percentage calculation. Exclusive reliance on BERA, especially click- evoked BERA, is therefore scientifically flawed and legally untenable. PTA results cannot be disregarded in favour of BERA alone."
6. Under these circumstances, the Court finds that there arise questions which need to be answered keeping in mind the expert opinion in the team. Therefore, the Court directs that the entire papers of the case including all reports be transmitted to the Director of AIIMS and the Director of AIIMS in turn, to present a note of expert opinion as to how and which report, the Court should rely upon.
7. Let the said exercise be carried out within a period of four weeks from today.
8. Mr Syed Abdul Haseeb, learned CGSC who appears on behalf of Union of India is directed to undertake the said exercise with due expedition and to intimate the Director of AIIMS as well.
9. List on 06.04.2026.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J FEBRUARY 24, 2026 Nc/ksr This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:44:29