Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Prakash Chandra Sahoo vs Kvs-Nvs on 24 March, 2026
1
Item No. 63 O.A. No. 2556/2022
Court No. 4
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 2556/2022
Reserved on :- 27.02.2026
Pronounced on:- 24.03.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Mr. Prakash Chandra Sahoo
S/o Sh. Iswan Chandra Sahoo, Aged 39 years
R/o E-16 and 17, Flat No. 4, Jagriti Society,
Sewk Park, Uttam Nagar, West Delhi, New Delhi.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Ankit Tandan)
Versus
1. Ministry of Human Resource Development
Through its Secretary
West Block, Rama Krishna Puram
New Delhi - 110066
2. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
Through its Commissioner
18, Institutional Area
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg
New Delhi
3. Joint Commissioner (Administration)
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
18, Institutional Area
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg
New Delhi
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Ranjan Tyagi)
ANKIT
ANKIT SAKLANI
SAKLANI2026.03.24
17:06:07+05'30'
2
Item No. 63 O.A. No. 2556/2022
Court No. 4
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
In the present Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"A. Allow and admit the present application. B. Direct the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to follow the guidelines / rules of OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO. 36035/02/2017-ESTT (RES), GOVERNMENT OF INDIA dated 15.01.2018 pertaining to the reservation to candidates of PWD category and increase one more vacancy pertaining to the PGT English PWD category by preparing the fresh roaster and set aside the selection process of the PWD candidates done without maintaining the roaster as per the 7.1 of the guidelines / rules of OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO. 36035/02/2017-ESTT (RES), GOVERNMENT OF INDIA dated 15.01.2018 and did not act according to 7.8 of the aforesaid guidelines,
(c) direct the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to appoint the petitioner on the post of PGT English after considering the case of the petitioner on merits after maintaining the roaster as per the basis of the nature of the post, level of representation of the specific disabled category in concerned grade/post etc.
(d) Pass any such further orders, as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interests of justice."
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted as under:
2.1. The applicant, a 45% Orthopedically Disabled (OH) candidate, applied for the post of PGT English pursuant to Advertisement No. 14 issued by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and secured 60.77 marks in the written examination and interview.
2.2. Learned counsel contended that although the total number of vacancies for the said post was subsequently revised from 55 to 71, the respondents failed to ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLANI2026.03.24 17:06:07+05'30' 3 Item No. 63 O.A. No. 2556/2022 Court No. 4 correspondingly increase the number of vacancies reserved for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PWD) in accordance with the Office Memorandum No. 36035/02/2017-Estt(Res) dated 15.01.2018 issued by the Government of India and further failed to prepare and maintain the mandatory roster for PWD candidates as required under the said guidelines. Learned counsel further contended that due to this non-compliance and improper implementation of the reservation policy, only one vacancy for the OH category was filled, whereas three vacancies were required to be reserved for PWD candidates, thereby depriving the applicant of fair consideration for appointment.
2.3. Concluding the arguments, learned counsel submitted that the selection process conducted without maintaining the prescribed roster and in violation of the aforesaid Office Memorandum is illegal and arbitrary, and, therefore, the present Original Application has been filed seeking preparation of a proper roster, revision of PWD vacancies, and consideration of the applicant for appointment to the post of PGT English in accordance with law.
2.4. In the written submission filed on behalf of the applicant it is further submitted that the respondents ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLANI2026.03.24 17:06:07+05'30' 4 Item No. 63 O.A. No. 2556/2022 Court No. 4 themselves have admitted, in their replies and communications, that three vacancies for PwD candidates were required as per the applicable rules and guidelines. It is contended that the mandatory roster for PwD candidates was never prepared, which has also been confirmed through RTI replies, thereby rendering the entire selection process for PwD candidates arbitrary and contrary to the guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel & Training. It is also submitted that in the absence of a valid roster, the suitability of candidates must be assessed based on the functional requirements of the post, and in that regard the applicant, being an Orthopedically Handicapped candidate, is more suitable for the teaching post of PGT English. It is also stated that the respondents cannot compensate or adjust reservation of one recruitment cycle with another advertisement, as each recruitment must independently comply with the statutory reservation policy. Reliance has also been placed on judicial observations highlighting repeated violations by the respondents in implementing disability reservation, and it is submitted that the respondents cannot derive benefit from their own failure to follow mandatory guidelines.
ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLANI2026.03.24 17:06:07+05'30' 5 Item No. 63 O.A. No. 2556/2022 Court No. 4
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the present OA is misconceived and liable to be dismissed as the recruitment process was conducted strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and procedure. 3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that at the time of Advertisement No. 14, only 55 vacancies for the post of PGT (English) were notified, out of which two vacancies were duly earmarked for Persons with Disabilities (one for OH and one for VH) and both were filled from the main panel. Though the total vacancies were later revised from 55 to 71, the applicant merely figured in the reserve panel with 60.77 marks, whereas another candidate under the VH category secured higher marks (61.63) and therefore would have a superior claim even if an additional PwD vacancy were considered. 3.2. Learned counsel further contended that the reservation roster for PwD candidates indicates that VH candidates were lesser represented as compared to OH category, and therefore the applicant does not acquire any vested or enforceable right to appointment. The respondents also contend that the applicant approached this Tribunal belatedly and the grievance raised does not confer any legal entitlement to appointment, particularly when the recruitment process has already been ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLANI2026.03.24 17:06:07+05'30' 6 Item No. 63 O.A. No. 2556/2022 Court No. 4 completed and appointments issued in accordance with merit and reservation norms.
4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
5. ANALYSIS :
5.1. The quantum of reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities has been specifically provided in the Office Memorandum dated 15.01.2018, which stipulates as follows:
"2. QUANTUM OF RESERVATION 2.1 In case of direct recruitment, four per cent of the total number of vacancies to be filled up by direct recruitment, in the cadre strength in each group of posts i.e. Groups A, B and C shall be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities.
2.2 Against the posts identified for each disabilities, of which, one per cent each shall be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (a), (b) and (c) and one per cent, under clauses (d) and (e), unless otherwise excluded under the provisions of Para 3 hereinunder:-
(a) blindness and low vision;
(b) deaf and hard of hearing;
(c) locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy;
(d) autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness;
(e) multiple disabilities from amongst persons under clauses (a) to (d) including deaf-blindness ."
5.2. From the above, it is clear that one percent each of the vacancies is required to be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities under the three specified ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLANI2026.03.24 17:06:07+05'30' 7 Item No. 63 O.A. No. 2556/2022 Court No. 4 categories. The applicant falls within the category mentioned under clause (C).
5.3. Further, learned counsel for the applicant has placed considerable reliance on Clause 7 of the Office Memorandum dated 15.01.2018, contending, inter alia, that the respondents failed to maintain the requisite roster points despite the subsequent increase in the number of vacancies.
"EFFECTING RESERVATION - MAINTENANCE OF ROSTERS:
7.1 Every Government establishment shall maintain group-wise a separate vacancy based 100 point vacancy based reservation roster register in the format given in Annexure for determining/effecting reservation for the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities
- one each for Group 'A' posts filled by direct recruitment, Group 'B' posts filled by direct recruitment and Group 'C' posts filled by direct recruitment. 7.2 Each register shall have cycles of 100 points and each cycle of 100 points shall be divided into four blocks, comprising the following points:1st Block - point No. 01 to point No. 25 2nd Block - point No. 26 to point No. 50 3rd Block - point No. 51 to point No. 75
4th Block -- point No. 76 to point No.100 7.3 Points 1, 26, 51 and 76 of the roster shall be earmarked for persons with benchmark disabilities -
one point each for four respective categories of disabilities. The Head of the establishment shall ensure that vacancies identified at SI. No.1, 26, 51 and 76 are earmarked for the respective categories of the persons with benchmark disabilities. However, the Head of the establishment shall decide the placement of the selected candidate in the roster register. 7.4 All the vacancies arising irrespective of vacancies reserved for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities shall be entered in the relevant roster. If the vacancy falling at point no. 1 is not identified for the Person with Benchmark Disability or the Head of the establishment ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLANI2026.03.24 17:06:07+05'30' 8 Item No. 63 O.A. No. 2556/2022 Court No. 4 considers it desirable not to fill it up by Persons with Benchmark Disabilities or it is not possible to fill up that post by the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities for any other reason, one of the vacancies falling at any of the points from 2 to 25 shall be treated as reserved for the person with benchmark disability and filled as such.
7.5 Likewise, a vacancy falling at any of the points from 26 to 50 or from 51 to 75 or from 76 to 100 shall have to be filled by the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities. The purpose of keeping points 1, 26, 51 and 76 as reserved is to fill up the first available suitable vacancy.
7.6 There is a possibility that none of the vacancies from 1 to 25 is suitable for any category of the person with benchmark disability. In that case two vacancies from 26 to 50 shall be filled as reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities. If the vacancies from 26 to 50 are also not suitable for any category, three vacancies shall be filled as reserved from the third block containing points from 51 to 75. This means that if no vacancy can be reserved in a particular block, it shall be carried over into the next block. 7.7 After all the 100 points of the roster are covered, a fresh cycle of 100 points shall start. 7.8 If the number of vacancies in a year is such as to cover only one block (say 25 vacancies) or two (say 50 vacancies), the category of the persons with benchmark disabilities should be accommodated as per the roster points. However, in case, the said vacancy is not identified for the respective category, the Head of the establishment shall decide the category on the basis of the nature of the post, the level of representation of the specific disabled category in the concerned grade/post etc."
5.4 The contention that marks do not determine the appointment and that the applicant (OH) is more suitable than the VH candidate cannot be accepted as a guiding principle for determining suitability within the PWD category. The legal position is clear and unambiguous:
the applicant was considered in his designated PWD category. Granting him precedence solely on the basis of perceived suitability over a VH candidate would ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLANI2026.03.24 17:06:07+05'30' 9 Item No. 63 O.A. No. 2556/2022 Court No. 4 contravene the one percent reservation mandated for each specific category. Moreover, the vacancy in question was not earmarked for any particular sub-category. The Head of the Establishment is tasked with deciding the appropriate category for a post, taking into account the nature of the post, the level of representation of the specific disabled category in the relevant grade, and other relevant factors. The applicant has not presented any convincing evidence to demonstrate that the respondents acted arbitrarily. It is also undisputed that another candidate, classified under the VH category, secured a higher score and is not a party to these proceedings.
5.5 At first glance, the applicant's reliance on the alleged admission in the counter affidavit, stating that "inadvertently, the KVS has not increased the vacancy for Persons with Disabilities. As per norms, three posts are to be earmarked for the PWD category", appeared noteworthy. However, on closer examination, it is clear that the applicant's rejoinder relies on the principle that "marks do not determine the job and the applicant (OH) being more suitable than the VH candidate" as a ground for precedence, which cannot be accepted in determining suitability within the PWD category. The counter-affidavit ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLANI2026.03.24 17:06:07+05'30' 10 Item No. 63 O.A. No. 2556/2022 Court No. 4 clarifies that implementing the roster would afford no undue advantage, as another candidate with higher marks falls under the VH category. At this belated stage, the applicant cannot claim entitlement solely on the basis of the inadvertent omission. The roster and benchmark disability provisions, along with the prescribed 4% reservation, govern the determination of the most suitable category. Any inadvertent error benefits the respondents, who are empowered to rectify such mistakes, and cannot be invoked by the applicant to claim an undue advantage. In view of the above, the Original Application lacks merit and is therefore dismissed. The applicant is also precluded from asserting any benefit arising from this error, in accordance with the established jurisprudential principle of negative equality under Article 14.
6. NOTE OF CAUTION :
It is expected that the respondents exercise due diligence to avoid repeating such inadvertent errors in the maintenance and operation of roster points in future recruitments, particularly in cases where vacancy positions for Persons with Disabilities are revised.
ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLANI2026.03.24 17:06:07+05'30' 11 Item No. 63 O.A. No. 2556/2022 Court No. 4
7. CONCLUSION :
7.1. In view of the aforesaid, we find no infirmity in the actions of the respondents. The Original Application is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
7.2. All pending M.A.(s) shall stand disposed of. No costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/as/
ANKIT
ANKIT SAKLANI
SAKLANI2026.03.24
17:06:07+05'30'