Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ms Khushbu vs Department Of Personnel And Training on 9 April, 2026
1
Item No. 71 O.A. No. 4137/2025
Court No. IV
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 4137/2025
Reserved on : 27.03.2026
Pronounced on: 09.04.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
Khushbu,
D/o Subhash,
R/o House No. 79 Bapoli, PO Bapoli,
Panipat (132104)
...Applicant
(By Advocates: Mr. Amritesh Mishra, Mr. Rahul Bajaj)
Versus
1. The Secretary
Department of Personnel and Training
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
Government of India
North Block, New Delhi
2. The Secretary
Department for Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities
Ministry of Social Justice
5th Floor, Antyodaya Bhawan, CGO Complex
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
3. The Director
Lady Hardinge Medical College
Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg
Connaught Place, New Delhi - 110001
4. The Chairman
Staff Selection Commission
5th Floor, Lodhi Road, CGO Complex
Block-12, New Delhi - 110003
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Arvind Kumar)
ANKIT
ANKITSAKLANI
SAKL 2026.04.1
0
ANI 11:12:57
+05'30'
2
Item No. 71 O.A. No. 4137/2025
Court No. IV
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
In the present Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"8.1. Set aside the order dated 02.05.2024 by way of which the applicant's candidature and selection for the post of ASO in CSS had been cancelled.
8.1. Set aside the order dated 13.09.2023 by way of which the applicant was directed to undergo a medical assessment to determine her disability percentage despite having a UDID card.
8.2. Direct the respondent no. 1 to issue an appointment letter to the applicant for the post of ASO in CSS and issue arrears of salary from 08.07.2023 i.e. when her counterparts had joined. 8.3. Direct the respondents to create a supernumerary post of ASO in CSS to accommodate the applicant in case of unavailability of any such post in the 2022-23 cycle."
2. Learned counsel for the applicant also pressed for grant of interim reliefs, which read as under:
"9.1. Direct the LHMC to declare the result of the Applicant's reassessment dated 26.05.2025.
9.2. Stay the effect and operation of the cancellation order dated 02.05.2024 issued by Respondent No. 1.
9.3. Direct Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to provisionally earmark one post of ASO under the PwBD category for the applicant till the final adjudication of this application.
9.4.Pass such other interim directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
3. Since the pleadings in the matter were complete, we took up the case for hearing and heard the same at length.
4. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present Original Application has been necessitated by the arbitrary, unlawful, and procedurally flawed actions of the respondents in cancelling the applicant's duly secured candidature for the post of ASO in ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:12:57 +05'30' 3 Item No. 71 O.A. No. 4137/2025 Court No. IV CSS, in gross violation of principles of natural justice and statutory protections.
4.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned cancellation order dated 02.05.2024 was passed unilaterally without affording any opportunity of hearing, and is based on inconsistent, non-transparent, and legally unsustainable medical reassessments, despite the applicant possessing a valid disability certificate and UDID card reflecting 51% permanent benchmark disability.
4.2. Learned counsel contended that the repeated reassessments, conducted even at the same institution which earlier declared her ineligible, lack any statutory basis and directly contravene the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the binding Guidelines dated 04.01.2018, and clarifications issued by the Department for Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities.
4.3. Learned counsel further contended that the respondents have ignored material facts, including the absence of any report from RML Hospital, misrepresented medical findings, and failed to declare the result of the latest reassessment dated 26.05.2025, thereby keeping the applicant's career in indefinite uncertainty.
4.4. Concluding the arguments, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the actions of the respondents are discriminatory, arbitrary, and contrary to Articles 14, 21, 41 and 46 of the Constitution, as well as Sections 3, 20, 34, 56, 57 and 58 of the 2016 Act, and have frustrated the ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:12:57 +05'30' 4 Item No. 71 O.A. No. 4137/2025 Court No. IV applicant's legitimate expectation arising from her valid certification and successful selection; hence, the present OA has been filed. 4.5. Learned counsel for the applicant drew our attention to the impugned order dated 02.05.2024, which reads as under:
"WHEREAS, Ms. Khushbu, Rank: 32158, was recommended by SSC for the post of Assistant Section Officer (ASO) in CSS under UR-PwBD (Others) category on the basis of CGLE, 2022.
AND WHEREAS, as per the PwBD Certificate submitted by her, she suffers from Multiple disabilities of Blindness in left eye and Hearing Impairment in both ears with overall disability of 51%. AND WHEREAS, vide this Department's letters dated 30.08.2023 and 14.11.2023, Ms. Khushbu was directed to appear for her Re-Medical examination at RML and Lady Hardinge Medical College Hospital. AND WHEREAS, as per the medical reports received vide communications dated 19.09.2023 and 15.04.2024 from RML and LHMC Hospitals, the overall disability of Ms. Khushbu came to be 38%. AND WHEREAS, the minimum degree of disability should be 40% in order to be eligible for any concessions/benefits under the PwBD Act. NOW THEREFORE, the Competent Authority in this Department hereby cancels the candidature of Ms. Khushbu, Rank: 32158, for the post of ASO in CSS."
4.6. The sum and substance of the impugned order is premised on a medical report wherein the overall disability of the applicant has been assessed at 38%, which is contrary to the minimum prescribed degree of disability of 40%.
4.7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that both the Detailed Medical Examination (DME) and the Review Medical Examination (RME) were conducted at the same hospital and, therefore, no independent assessment has been carried out.
ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:12:57 +05'30' 5 Item No. 71 O.A. No. 4137/2025 Court No. IV 4.8. It is further submitted that any reassessment ought to have been conducted by an independent Medical Board to ensure fairness and transparency in the process.
4.9. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that the applicant also approached the Court of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities for redressal of her grievances, inter alia, contending that as per the disability certificate dated 17.02.2021, no further assessment or reassessment ought to have been conducted, inasmuch as her disability had been assessed at 51% in accordance with the applicable guidelines. The said disability certificate also contained the following stipulations:
"2. This Condition is not likely to improve.
3. Re-assessment of disability is:
(i) not recommended"
5. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Original Application is wholly misconceived, devoid of merit, and liable to be dismissed, as the applicant's candidature for the post of ASO in CSS was lawfully cancelled pursuant to medical assessments which consistently established that her overall disability fell below the statutory benchmark of 40% prescribed under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
5.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant was initially issued a disability certificate reflecting 51% combined disability; however, due to significant discrepancies observed in the original assessment, the respondents referred the matter to the empanelled Medical Board at Lady ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:12:57 +05'30' 6 Item No. 71 O.A. No. 4137/2025 Court No. IV Hardinge Medical College (LHMC) for a re-evaluation. The LHMC Medical Board conducted a thorough reassessment, evaluating visual and hearing impairment, and calculated the overall disability as 38%, below the minimum threshold.
5.2. In compliance with directions from the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD), a second appellate assessment was conducted by an Appellate Medical Board at LHMC, which further assessed the overall disability at 31%, confirming that the applicant did not meet the benchmark disability required under the PwBD Act.
5.3. Learned counsel contended that the significant discrepancy between the applicant's initial certificate (51%) and subsequent assessments (38% and 31%) raises serious doubts regarding the correctness and methodology of the original certification, warranting further scrutiny by the issuing authority.
5.4. Learned counsel further submitted that all assessments were carried out strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Department for Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPwD) and the Standard Operating Procedure for re-assessment of benchmark disabilities, ensuring fairness, transparency, and adherence to statutory procedure. Reliance was placed on the expertise of these professional Medical Boards. 5.5. Concluding the arguments, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there has been no arbitrariness, discrimination, or violation of natural justice, and that all actions were taken in compliance with directions ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:12:57 +05'30' 7 Item No. 71 O.A. No. 4137/2025 Court No. IV of the CCPD and in consultation with the concerned authorities. Consequently, the applicant, not meeting the minimum benchmark disability, was ineligible for concessions or benefits under the PwBD category, and the cancellation order dated 02.05.2024 is therefore legal, valid, and requires no interference by this Tribunal.
6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
7. ANALYSIS :
7.1. The respondents have relied upon Para 19.3 of the DEPwD Assessment Guidelines dated 04.01.2018 and submitted that the medical assessment of the applicant, as conducted by LHMC, reads as follows:
"As per the reports received (Annexure-II) from LHMC Ms. Khushbu has 6/6 in her right eye and( her left eye is visionless and as per Para 19.3 oft DEPD, Assessment Guidelines dated 04.01.2018 (Annexure-III), blindness in one eye is considered as 30% disability.
Further, Hearing Impairment came to be 12%.
As per the formula prescribed for assessing the overall disability in case of multiple disabilities as per para 40.2 of the Assessment guidelines dated 04.01.2018, the overall disability came out to be 38% instead of 51% as mentioned in her disability certificate."
7.2. In CA No. 868/2024 titled Prabhu Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2026 INSC 253, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
"37. In fact, even the High Court in the impugned judgment expressed reservations regarding the approach of respondents in fixing 60% ceiling for the said post. The relevant findings are extracted below:-
"The only aspect which now remains to be examined in the instant case is regarding the mode and manner of determining the maximum limit of disability. In (2009) 14 SCC 546, titled Union of India vs. Devender Kumar Pant, Hon'ble Apex Court held that ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:12:57 +05'30' 8 Item No. 71 O.A. No. 4137/2025 Court No. IV intention of the Disabilities Act is not to accept reduced standards of efficiency in performance of functions of a particular post merely because the employee suffers from a disability. In the instant case respondents No. 1 and 2 in their reply have simply submitted that head of every establishment has the competency to prescribe conditions or restrictions for assessing suitability of a person for a post, keeping in view the nature of job, work, duties, functions to be performed by the incumbent of a post. The action of respondent No. 2 in placing a cap of 60% as benchmark disability of one leg/one arm for the post of ADA has been sought to be justified on the ground that ADA is required to perform multifarious duties and functions. The respondents have not placed on record any material to show as to how and by adopting what process, under which of the provisions of the Act/instructions etc., the ceiling limit of 60% disability was fixed by them for determining the eligibility of a candidate belonging to physically handicapped (locomotor impaired) category for the post of Assistant District Attorney. How the issue was deliberated, who deliberated the issue, whether any Committee of experts in the concerned field of medicine (locomotor disability) was constituted to determine the maximum eligibility limit of disability for the post of ADA, whether any decision in that regard was taken, is not forthcoming from the reply. In fact, following para of the reply reflects the confusion writ large in respondent No. 2-department about fixation of 60% disability as maximum eligibility limit for the post of ADAs: -
"........it is submitted that the upper limit of disability of 60% has been incorporated keeping in view the legitimate aim on suitability of a candidate to a particular post. However, the matter is being taken up with the Department of Social justice & Empowerment i.e. Administrative Department to provide the detail of identification of posts and extent of disability and the replying respondent, reserves its right to file supplementary reply at any stage hereinafter, as and when the outcome of the deliberations is received...." Respondents, it appears are themselves not clear about the extent of maximum disability which should have been prescribed for physically handicapped category candidates for the post of ADA. The Act is a beneficial legislation enacted for the welfare of persons with disabilities. It was incumbent upon the respondents to deliberate over the issue with experts for determining the maximum extent of disability vis- a-vis the eligibility of disabled persons for the posts in question. Such determination should not be solely left to the discretion of the employer. We have the example of this case where even after the completion of selection process, respondents are themselves not certain about soundness of prescribing 60% as the maximum eligible limit of disability. We, therefore, direct the respondent-State through respondent No. 1 ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:12:57 +05'30' 9 Item No. 71 O.A. No. 4137/2025 Court No. IV personnel department to issue necessary directions to all concerned departments etc. for henceforth fixing maximum eligibility limit of disability for persons belonging to physically handicapped category, for the posts reserved for them under 2016 Act, only after due deliberation over the issue with Department of Social Justice & Empowerment in consultation with committee of experts in the concerned field of medicine to be constituted by the State for the said purpose." (Emphasis supplied)
38. A perusal of the above observations makes it evident that even the High Court noted the absence of any tangible material to demonstrate the foundational basis on which the 60% disability ceiling had been fixed. The respondents were unable to indicate whether the issue had been deliberated upon with the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment or whether any expert committee in the field of locomotor disability had been consulted prior to prescribing the said limit. The pleadings filed on behalf of the respondents, as noticed by the High Court, in fact reveal a certain degree of uncertainty regarding the justification behind prescribing such a ceiling.
39. Thus, it becomes evident that the fixation of the 60% upper limit of disability for selection against the posts reserved for persons with disability in the subject advertisement was not preceded by any objective evaluation of the functional requirements of the post or by any expert consultation as contemplated under the statutory scheme of the RPwD Act, 2016. In the absence of any rational basis or intelligible criterion for prescribing such a restriction, the said upper limit of disability was clearly unjust and invalid.
40. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that denial of appointment to the appellant for the post of ADA, in spite of having succeeded in the competitive examination and the interview and having been recommended for appointment, was arbitrary, unjustified and in gross violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and so also the mandate of the RPwD Act, 2016.
41. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 29th September, 2020 does not stand to scrutiny and is hereby set aside.
42. The respondent No.1-State of Himachal Pradesh shall forthwith, and not later than within a period of two weeks from today, issue the appointment letter to the appellant for the post of ADA in the subject recruitment process.
43. Vide order dated 8th November, 2021 passed by this Court, the vacancy stated to be existing was directed not to be filled up and to be kept reserved for the appellant, who shall be appointed against the said post. In the event that the designated vacant post is unavailable for any technical reason, respondent No.1-State shall create a supernumerary post to accommodate the appellant.
ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:12:57 +05'30' 10 Item No. 71 O.A. No. 4137/2025 Court No. IV
44. The appointment of the appellant shall relate back to 19th September, 2019, and the appellant shall be entitled to all notional benefits from the said date.
45. Considering the fact that the appellant, despite standing in merit was unjustly denied appointment and compelled to pursue prolonged litigation, we deem it appropriate to impose costs of Rs. 5 lakhs on respondent No.1-State of Himachal Pradesh, which shall be paid to the appellant within a period of four weeks from today.
46. The appeal is allowed accordingly."
7.3. In Sudhanshu Kardam v. Comptroller and Auditor General of India & Ors. (2026 INSC 232), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
"17. Ex facie, upon hearing the submissions advanced by Mr. Rahul Bajaj, learned counsel representing the appellant, and Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, learned ASG, this Court was satisfied that the appellant herein could be considered for appointment in the appropriate category in light of the Gazette Notification dated 4th January, 2021 issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, DEPwD (Divyangjan), which is reproduced below:-
"MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT [Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan)] NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 4th January, 2021 No. 38-16/2020-DD- III -- Whereas Section 33 of the repealed Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter, after referred as repealed Act) provided for reservation of not less than 3% for persons with disabilities in the three categories namely, (i) locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, (ii) visual impairment (low vision & blindness) and (iii) hearing impairment.
2. And whereas, section 32 of the repealed Act mandated the appropriate Government to identify posts to be reserved for persons with disabilities and review such list at periodic interval not exceeding three years.
3. And whereas, in pursuance of the above provisions of the repealed Act, the Central Government last notified the list of posts suitable for persons with disabilities through notification No. 16-15/2010-DD-III dated 29th July, 2013.
4. And whereas, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, in pursuance of the provisions of sections 32 and 33 of the repealed Act (since repealed on 15.06.2017) had constituted an Expert Committee on the 19th November, 2015 under the chairpersonship of the Secretary, Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities to review the list of Central Government posts identified suitable for Persons with Disabilities. Copy of the said order is at Annexure-A.
5. And whereas, the Expert Committee met on the 9th December, 2015 and decided that one Sub-
ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:12:57 +05'30' 11 Item No. 71 O.A. No. 4137/2025 Court No. IV Committee should be constituted for each of the category of disabilities which are provided reservation under section 33 of the said repealed Act and accordingly, following three Sub- Committees were constituted, namely: -- i. Sub-Committee for locomotor disability ii. Sub-Committee for hearing impaired iii. Sub-Committee for visually impaired
6. And whereas, the Central Government notified the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred as "the Act") which inter-alia under sub-section (1) of section 34 extended the benefit of reservation to persons with benchmark disabilities in the new category of
(i) autism, specific learning disability, mental illness and intellectual disabilities and (ii) multiple disabilities amongst the various categories mentioned in the said section of the Act.
7. And whereas, Section 33 of the said Act mandates the appropriate Government to constitute expert committee for identification of posts suitable for persons with benchmark disabilities and accordingly, following two sub- committees were further constituted to take care of identification of posts suitable for new categories included under the Act, namely; (i) Sub-Committee for autism, intellectual disabilities, specific learning disability and mental illness, and (ii) Sub- Committee for multiple disabilities.
8. And whereas, all the Sub-Committees reviewed the posts notified through notification No.16- 15/2010-DD-III dated the 29th July 2013, and submitted their reports and the Expert Committee considered the reports of the Sub-Committees in its meeting held on 19th November 2019, finalized its recommendations and submitted its report to the Central Government for consideration.
9. Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred upon section 33 of the said Act and based on the recommendations of the Expert Committee, the Central Government hereby notifies the gist of the report, which is at Annexure-B and the list of Central Government posts in Group A, B, C and D identified suitable for persons with benchmark disabilities which is at Annexure-C for information and further necessary action by all cadre controlling authorities in the Central Government.
10. The said list supersedes the list of posts for Groups 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D' notified through notification No. 16-15/2010-DD-III dated 29th July, 2013."
8. CONCLUSION :
8.1. In view of the above dictum, as well as the Gazette Notification dated 04.01.2021, it is appropriate to dispose of the present matter with the following directions:
(i) The respondents shall allow the applicant to appear before a Disability Assessment Board at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi under the supervision ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:12:57 +05'30' 12 Item No. 71 O.A. No. 4137/2025 Court No. IV of the Medical Superintendent, along with all relevant original documents, for a re-assessment of her disability.
(ii) The Medical Superintendent, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi shall also nominate doctors specialized in the relevant disabilities to examine the applicant and arrive at a fair and just conclusion regarding:
Whether the disability certificate dated 17.02.2021 is sufficient to determine that the applicant's condition is not likely to improve; and The overall extent of the applicant's physical impairment.
(iii) In the event that the applicant falls within the prescribed parameters under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the respondents shall take a definitive decision on whether the applicant can be considered for appointment to the post in question.
(iv) The entire exercise shall be completed within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. Thereafter, if found eligible, the offer of appointment shall be issued to the applicant within 30 days.
8.2. Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/as/
ANKIT
ANKITSAKLANI
SAKL 2026.04.1
0
ANI 11:12:57
+05'30'