Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Barkha Yadav vs Dsssb on 17 December, 2025
1
OA No. 2033/2023
Item No.87/C-4
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 2033/2023
Reserved on : 20.11.2025
Pronounced on : 17.12.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
Barkha Yadav
R/o RZ-432 (Old No. RZ-129)
Gali No.10, East Sagarpu
Delhi-110046.
.. Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Ankur Yadav with Mr. Abhimanyu Roy,
Mr. Shashank Shekhar and Mr. Akash)
Versus
1. Chairman
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
FC-18, Institutional Area
Karkardooma, Delhi-92.
2. Secretary
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
FC-18, Institutional Area
Karkardooma, Delhi-92.
.. Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Girish C. Jha)
Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN
Date: 2025.12.19 10:48:32+05'30'
2
OA No. 2033/2023
Item No.87/C-4
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A) In the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought for the following relief(s):-
"1. To pass an order directing the Respondent to quash/set aside Result dated 21/22.02.2023 whereby applicant was disqualified in the exam;
2. To pass an order directing the Respondents to consider the applicant candidature for appointment to the post of Junior Secretariat Assistant Post code 44/21;
3. To pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated by learned counsel for the applicant are as under:-
2.1 Pursuant to Advertisement No.02/2021 issued by the DSSSB inviting application for various posts, the applicant being eligible applied for the post of Junior Secretariat Assistant (LDC), Post code No.44/2021, in Municipal Corporation of Delhi in Physically Handicapped category. She appeared in Tier-I examination held on 08.04.2022, in which she scored 71.59 marks and declared successful vide result dated 13.09.2022.
2.2 In the notice dated 13.09.2022 whereby the result was declared, there is a note appended to it which reads as under:
"Note: shortlisting for typing test is purely provisional of these candidates and these candidates are to be distributed among Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2025.12.19 10:48:32+05'30' 3 OA No. 2033/2023 Item No.87/C-4 OH/VH/HH/AIDSLDMI sub-category as per their merit of written EXAMINATION AND BEING QUALLIFIED IN SKILL test also, at later stage, after ascertaining that type of disability, viz. OH/VH/HH/ AIDSLDMI / Multiple disability, on the basis of their disability certificate uploaded by them in their respective 2-dossier."
2.3 Tier-II examination was held on 22.11.2022. As per procedure, the applicant went to the examination centre and presented her medical certificate claiming exemption from giving skill test, but the officer declined her request.
2.4 It is contended by the applicant that she had already submitted her medical certificate and she should have been automatically exempted from Tier-II Skill Test. However, on the contrary, she was disqualified without assigning any reason. 2.5 The learned counsel for the applicant referred to the instructions issued by the Department of Personnel and Training vide Office Memorandum dated 22.04.2015 on exemption from passing the Typewriting Test on Computer in Respect of LDCs, whereby for physically handicapped persons, following instruction were provided:
"a) Physically handicapped persons who are otherwise qualified to hold clerical post and who are certified as being unable to type by the Medical Board attached to Special Employment Exchanges for the Handicapped (or by a Civil Surgeon where there is no such Board) may be exempted from passing the typing test.
b) The term 'physically handicapped persons' does not cover those who are visually handicapped or who are hearing handicapped but cover only those whose physical disability permanently prevents them from typing."Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN
Date: 2025.12.19 10:48:32+05'30' 4 OA No. 2033/2023 Item No.87/C-4 2.6 It is submitted that the above Office Memorandum has been accepted by the DSSSB and issued guidelines pertaining to Physical Handicapped Students.
2.7 It is also submitted that the respondents on 02.03.2021 issued a general instruction for Visually Handicapped candidates for skill test of post codes 21/18 and 51 (for some other recruitment). Clause 27 of the said guidelines read as under:
"Candidates who are seeking exemption from passing of typing test are directed to refer the guidelines laid down by DoPT, Govt. of India F.No. 14020/2014-Estt.(D) dated 22th April, 2015 put the physically handicapped person/candidate who seeks exemption from passing typing test which may be read as under:
A. Physically handicapped persons who are otherwise qualified to hold clerical post and who are satisfied as being unable to type or by medical board attached to special employment exchange for the handicapped or by civil surgeon where there is no such board may be exempted from passing the typing test.
B. The term 'physical handicap' person doesn't cover those who are visually handicapped, or who are hearing handicap but cover only those whose physical disability permanently prevent them from typing test.
In view of the above, Candidates who are seeking exemption are required to give certificate from medical board attached to special employment exchange for the handicapped or by civil surgeon where there is no such board that he/ she is unable to type at skill test Centre on the date mentioned on the e-admit card."
2.8 The applicant being Physically Handicapped was issued Disability Certificate by Medical Superintendent, VMMC & Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi on 10.07.2018 whereby, according to doctors, she was having 60% Permanent Physical Impairment which is not likely to improve. She was also issued unique Disability ID by the Government of India.
Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2025.12.19 10:48:32+05'30' 5 OA No. 2033/2023 Item No.87/C-4 2.9 It was specifically mentioned in the advertisement No.02/2021 that "this post is identified suitable for VH (PD & DD), OH (BL, OL, OA & OAL). Multiple Disability (Dwarfism leprosy, Acid Attack, Thalassemia, Hemophilia, Central Palsy, Locomotor Disability & seckle Cell desease-02, acid Attack Victim, Dwarfism, PwD (PD, OL, BL & OA) candidates as per requisition of user department. 2.10 The applicant while applying for the post mentioned that she is an OBC candidate and in sub-category, clearly mentioned PHOB (Physically Handicapped) and presented her medical certificate claiming exemption from giving skill test. However, the candidature of the applicant was rejected without according her the benefit of exemption, without assigning any reason which is against the principle of natural justice. Hence, this O.A. 2.11 The learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the Order passed by this Tribunal in an identical matter bearing O.A. No. 3188/2018 titled as Sumit vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others, decided on 17.05.2024.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit, submitted that the final result for the post code No.44/21 was declared on 05.04.2023 and there is no result dated 21/22.02.2023, as stated by the applicant. Further, the general instruction dated 02.03.2021 does not pertain to this post code.
Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2025.12.19 10:48:32+05'30' 6 OA No. 2033/2023 Item No.87/C-4 3.1 He also submitted that in consonance with para (ii)(a) of the DoPT's OM dated 22.04.2015, general instruction for Skill Test for the Post Code 44/21 was issued on 21.10.2022, wherein vide para no.27, the candidates were directed to produce prescribed medical certificate wherein competent medical authority declare him/her to be permanently unfit for typing test because of their physical disability. The relevant content of the para is reproduced below:
"Para 27:- ... Person with disabilities candidates who claim to be permanently unfit to take the Typing Test because of a physical disability shall submit a Certificate in the prescribed Format (Annexure-A) at Skill Test Centre on the date mentioned on e- admit card. This Certificate (Annexure-A) should be issued by the Competent Medical Authority, i.e. Civil Surgeon of a Government Health Care Institution declaring him to be permanently unfit for the Typing Test because of a physical disability. ........"
Thus, it is clear that for exemption from Typing Test, the applicant had to submit a Certificate in the prescribed format. However, as per the Observer report and Attendance Report, the applicant appeared for the skill test on 20.11.2022 but did not submit any certificate in the prescribed format for exemption from Skill Test. 3.2 He further submitted that PHOB/PHSC candidates have to qualify Written and Skill Test also, after which they are distributed among PH sub-category, as the specific sub-category was not mentioned at the time of filling application form. The claim for exemption from typing/skill test has not been made by the applicant in the prescribed format, when she reported at typing/skill test Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2025.12.19 10:48:32+05'30' 7 OA No. 2033/2023 Item No.87/C-4 venue. Thus, no relief is admissible in the present case of the applicant.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length and perused the pleadings/judgment placed on record.
5. The applicant has challenged her disqualification for the post of Junior Secretariat Assistant (LDC) due to her inability to pass the Skill/Typing Test, despite claiming exemption on medical ground as a Physically Handicapped (PHOB) candidate. It is claimed that in accordance with the DoPT's guidelines, she should have been automatically exempted from the typing test as she submitted a medical certificate claiming exemption from the typing test, due to her permanent physical impairment. However, the respondents contending that the certificate was not in the prescribed format as per the specific instructions for this recruitment, disqualified the applicant.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant has placed strong reliance upon the Order dated 17.05.2024 passed by this Tribunal in the case of Sumit (supra), wherein after detailed consideration of a similar issue and legal precedents, it has been observed and held as under:
"8. Analysis 8.1. For arising at just decision we would refer to Rules position qua the instructions on exemption the passing typing test on computer in respect of LDC. A reference is drawn to OM dated 22.04.2015 issued by Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training.Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN
Date: 2025.12.19 10:48:32+05'30' 8 OA No. 2033/2023 Item No.87/C-4 "a) Physically handicapped persons who are otherwise qualified to hold clerical post and who are certified as being unable to type by the Medical Board attached to Special Employment Exchanges for the Handicapped (or by a Civil Surgeon where there is no such Board) may be exempted from passing the typing test."
8.2. Pursuant to which a notice was issued by the respondents on 02.01.2018 which reads as under:
"I am directed to inform to convey the guidelines laid down by DOFT No. 14020/2014-Estt. (D) dated 22th April, 2015 for the physically handicapped persons/candidates who are seeking exemption from passing ping test may be read as under:
(a) Physically handicapped persons who are otherwise qualified to hold clerical post and who are certified as being unable to type by the Medical Board attached to Special Employment Exchanges for the Handicapped (or by a Civil Surgeon where there is no such Board) may be exempted from passing the typing test.
(b) The term 'physically handicapped persons' does not cover those who are visually handicapped or who are hearing handicapped but cover only those whose physical disability permanently prevents them from typing.
In view of the above, candidates who are seeking exemption are required to give certificate from Medical Board attached to Special Employment Exchanges for the Handicapped (or by a Civil Surgeon that the he/she is unable to type at Skill Test Centre the on the date mentioned on e-Admit Card."
8.3. It is not in dispute that the applicant did not seek exemption and appeared in the typing test. Accordingly, it is also not in dispute that e could not qualify the typing test. Both parties rely on the aforementioned OM dated 22.04.2015. The learned counsel for the applicant relies upon clause 2 (ii) (a) (b) as reproduced herein above. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the Rules of the instructions that there was a precondition for requiring to give a certificate from the medical board seeking exemption. No such medical certificate was given at the relevant point in time.
9. The learned counsel for the applicant places reliance upon the medical certificate issued by the Maharishi Balmiki Hospital, Govt. of NCT of Delhi dated 24.01.2014 (Annexure A/2).The interpretation of the aforementioned OM has to be seen with reference to the provisions of the Disabled Act. Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2025.12.19 10:48:32+05'30' 9 OA No. 2033/2023 Item No.87/C-4
10. Learned counsel for the applicant would contend that at least 04 OH category candidates have been exempted from the skill test. The 1st candidate provisionally selected under the OH category has obtained 87.75 marks, while perhaps the last, i.e., the 8th selected candidate in the said category, has obtained 79.75 marks in the written examination. All of them have obtained lesser marks than the applicant. It shall not be out of place to mention here that the selection of candidates is based on the merit position obtained in the written examination, with the skill test being a qualifying examination only.
11. We have given anxious consideration to the default on the part of the applicant in not approaching the Competent Authority by providing a certificate as prescribed well in time.The applicant chose to appear in the typing test though he failed in the said typing test. In light of the provision as contained in the Right of person with Disability Act, it does not preclude the applicant from seeking exemption, more particularly, in light of the fact that the applicant had obtained 114 marks in the written examination.
12. It is also a fact that the applicant suffers from a 63% permanent physical impairment in relation to his left elbow joint, which would necessarily have been an impediment in performing well in the typing skill test. The applicant took a chance with the same, which by itself does not give grounds to the respondents not to consider the case of the applicant, as he has secured well, i.e., 114 marks in the written test. Keeping in view the pious objection of the Act for which it was enacted.
13. In an identical situation, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) 9255/19 titled Raju Ranjan V/s Union of India, decided on 11.07.2023, has observed as follows:
"50. Suffice to state, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vikash Kumar (supra) has held that the judgment in V. SurendraMohan (supra) could not be a binding precedent after the enforcement of the 2016 RPwD Act. The Supreme Court in paragraphs 68 to 73 has held as under:
―68. A discordant note struck by this Court having a direct bearing on the principle of reasonable accommodation finds expression in a two-Judge Bench decision of this Court in V. Surendra Mohan v. State of T.N. [V. Surendra Mohan v. State of T.N., (2019) 4 SCC 237 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 594] (―Mohanl). The proceedings before this Court arose from a judgment [V. Surendra Mohan v. State of T.N., 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 2100] of the Madras High Court. At issue was the decision of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (―TNPCI) to impose a ceiling of 40-50% visual/hearing impairment to be eligible to be appointed as a Civil Judge (Junior Division). Differently stated, a person whose visual/hearing impairment exceeded 50% Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2025.12.19 10:48:32+05'30' 10 OA No. 2033/2023 Item No.87/C-4 was disqualified from being eligible for the said post. In the said case, the appellant's disability was 70%. The appellant's name was not included in the list of registered numbers who were provisionally admitted to the oral test. He challenged this in the Madras High Court. By its judgment dated 5-6-2015 [V. Surendra Mohan v. State of T.N., 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 2100] , the Madras High Court held that as per the decision of the Government dated 8-
8-2014 and Notification issued by the TNPC dated 26-8-2014, those partially blind with 40%-50% disability were only eligible and the appellant having 70% disability was not eligible to participate in the selection.
69. A two-Judge Bench of this Court held that a judicial officer in a State has to possess reasonable limit of the faculties of hearing, sight and speech in order to hear cases and write judgments and, therefore, stipulating a limit of 50% disability in hearing impairment or visual impairment as a condition to be eligible for the post is a legitimate restriction. This Court affirmed the submission of the Madras High Court that seeking to address the socially constructed barriers faced by a visually or hearing impaired Judge, whose disability exceeds 50%, would create ―avoidable complications. As a result, the impugned ceiling was found to be valid. The relevant portion of the judgment is excerpted below : (V. Surendra Mohan case [V. Surendra Mohan v. State of T.N., (2019) 4 SCC 237 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 594] , p. 257, para 45) ―45. ... The High Court in its additional statement has encapsulated the functions and duties of the Civil Judge in the following words:
_7. ... Impaired vision can only make it extremely difficult, even impossible, to perform any of these functions at all. ... Therefore, creating any reservation in appointment for those with disabilities beyond the 50% level is far from advisable as it may create practical and seemingly other avoidable complications. Moreover, given the need to prepare judgments based on the case papers and other material records in a confidential manner, the assistance of a scribe or the like completely takes away the secrecy and discreetness that come with the demands of the post.'
70. This judgment was delivered by this Court after India became a party to the UNCRPD and the 2016 RPwD Act, came into force. The aforesaid view espoused by this Court is innocent of the principle of reasonable accommodation. This Court did not Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2025.12.19 10:48:32+05'30' 11 OA No. 2033/2023 Item No.87/C-4 consider whether the failure of the TNPC to provide reasonable accommodation to a Judge with a disability above the impugned ceiling was statutorily or constitutionally tenable. There is no reference in this Court's judgment to whether the appellant would have been able to discharge the duties of a Civil Judge (Junior Division), after being provided the reasonable accommodations necessitated by his disability.
71. The analysis by this Court in the portion excerpted above begs the question. Specifically, the relevant question, under the reasonable accommodation analysis, is not whether complications will be caused by the grant of a reasonable accommodation. By definition, ―reasonable accommodation‖ demands departure from the status quo and hence ―avoidable complications‖ are inevitable. The relevant question is whether such W.P.(C) 9255/2019 Page 31 accommodations would give rise to a disproportionate or undue burden. The two tests are entirely different.
72. As we have noted previously, the cornerstone of the reasonable accommodation principle is making adjustments that enable a disabled person to effectively counter the barriers posed by their disability. Conspicuous by its absence is any reasonable accommodation analysis whatsoever by this Court in Mohan [V. Surendra Mohan v. State of T.N., (2019) 4 SCC 237 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 594] . Such an analysis would have required a consideration of the specific accommodations needed, the cost of providing them, reference to the efficacy with which other Judges with more than 40-50% visual/hearing impairment in India and abroad can discharge judicial duties after being provided the necessary accommodations, amongst other factors. In holding that the ceiling was reasonable on the application of the principle of reasonable accommodation, the ratio as expounded fails as ―distinct exhortatory dimension that must always be kept in mind while determining whether an adjustment to assist a disabled person to overcome the disadvantage that she or he has in comparison to an able-bodied person is reasonable‖. [Paulley v. FirstGroup Plc, (2017) 1 WLR 423 : 2017 UKSC 4, para 117 [Lord Kerr --
partly dissenting].] It is persons with disabilities who have been the victim of this lapse.
73. In light of the fact that the view of this Court in Mohan [V. Surendra Mohan v. State of T.N., (2019) 4 SCC 237 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 594] was rendered in a case under the 1995 Act which has now been Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2025.12.19 10:48:32+05'30' 12 OA No. 2033/2023 Item No.87/C-4 replaced by the 2016 RPwD Act and in light of the absence of a reasonable accommodation analysis by this Court, the Mohan [V. Surendra Mohan v. State of T.N., (2019) 4 SCC 237 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 594] judgment stands on a legally vulnerable footing. It would not be a binding precedent, after enforcement of the 2016 RPwD Act.‖
51. It must be said that the issues which arose for consideration in V. Surendra Mohan (supra) and Vikash Kumar (supra) are in a totally different fact scenario and not the one which falls for consideration in this petition.
52. It follows the petitioner was also entitled to equal treatment of waiving off the computer / typing test having disability of one arm, in view of the instructions issued by the Government of India from time to time which we have already reproduced above. Moreover, the benefit of those instructions have been given in favour of the LDCs, who were promoted to the post of SSA and there is no reason why the same benefit could have been denied to the petitioner herein which clearly violate the mandate of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
53. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold, that the stipulation in the recruitment rules that a candidate must qualify the typing test with a speed of 5000 KDPH must be read down to mean the same shall not be applicable to a candidate who has disability of one arm or both arms or one arm and one leg.
15. Since the applicant chose to participate in the typing test without seeking exemption and failed. We direct that the applicant shall not be entitled to any consequential relief except notional seniority.
15.1. It is also a matter of fact that written representation of the applicant was also not addressed by the respondents.
16. In view of the above, the applicant is entitled to the grant of exemption towards the typing test, the OA deemed to be allowed. The actual benefits to the applicant shall be accorded from the date of the joining. This exercise shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
17. The present OA is allowed. No order as to costs." Although in the above order, the representation of the applicant was not addressed by the respondents, no representation has been preferred by the applicant in the present case. Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2025.12.19 10:48:32+05'30' 13 OA No. 2033/2023 Item No.87/C-4
7. On a careful perusal of the record, it is undisputed that the applicant is a person with benchmark disability, having 60% permanent physical impairment, duly certified by a competent Government medical authority. The nature of disability is non- progressive and not likely to improve. The applicant had disclosed her disability at the time of application and submitted her medical certificate; and had also produced a disability certificate at the skill test centre claiming exemption from the typing test. Thus, the core issue in the present O.A. is not the existence of disability or the eligibility of the applicant for reservation under the PwD category, but whether the applicant's candidature could be rejected solely on the ground that the medical certificate for exemption from typing test was not submitted in the prescribed format, despite the fact that her disability and its impact on typing ability stood established.
8. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Raju Ranjan vs Union of India & Anr. in WP (C) No. 9255/2019, decided on 11.07.2023, has categorically held that the requirement of qualifying a typing/computer skill test must be read down in respect of candidates suffering from disabilities of limbs which materially affect their ability to type. The High Court, relying upon the judgment of the Apex in Vikash Kumar vs UPSC, emphasized that the principle of reasonable accommodation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 mandates a substantive, and not a hyper- technical, approach while dealing with claims of persons with Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2025.12.19 10:48:32+05'30' 14 OA No. 2033/2023 Item No.87/C-4 disabilities. Denial of exemption on procedural or technical grounds, without examining the real impact of the disability, was held to be violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
9. Following the above legal position, this Tribunal in the case of Sumit (supra), already reproduced herein above, has held that once the permanent physical disability of the applicant is established and the skill test is only of qualifying nature, the failure to submit the exemption certificate in the prescribed format or the fact that the candidate appeared in the typing test cannot be used to deny the benefit of exemption. It is emphasized that the objectives of the RPwD Act would be defeated if substantive rights are negated by rigid adherence to procedural formalities.
10. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid judgments to the present case, we are of the considered view that the respondents ought to have examined the applicant's claim for exemption in the light of her admitted permanent physical impairment and the mandate of reasonable accommodation, instead of disqualifying her candidature merely on the ground of non-submission of the disability certificate in the prescribed format. Such an approach is contrary to the spirit of the DoPT's O.M. dated 22.04.2015, the RPwD Act 2016, and the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Raju Ranjan (supra).
Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2025.12.19 10:48:32+05'30' 15 OA No. 2033/2023 Item No.87/C-4
11. Resultantly, in consonance with the principles laid down in Raju Ranjan (supra) and Sumit (supra), we hold that the applicant is entitled for exemption from the typing/skill test. Consequently, the impugned disqualification of the applicant cannot be sustained in law.
12. Accordingly, we allow the O.A. and the respondents are directed to grant exemption from the skill/typing test to the applicant and consider her candidature for the post of Junior Secretariat Assistant (Post Code 44/21) on the basis of her performance in the written examination, subject to meeting other criteria. The respondents shall take further consequential action, in accordance with law. The applicant shall be entitled for notional seniority as per her merit and for actual benefits from the date of her joining to the post. The aforesaid directions shall be complied with by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
13. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/jyoti/
Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN
Date: 2025.12.19 10:48:32+05'30'