Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Anant Kumar vs Railway Recruitment Cell(E R) on 27 February, 2026
1 O.A. No. 350/1416/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA
O.A. No. 350/1416/2023
Date of Hearing: 09.02.2026
Date of Order: 27.02.2026
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Anindo Majumdar, Administrative Member
Hon'ble Mr. Diwakar Singh, Judicial Member
Anant Kumar, aged about 44
years, son of Shri Alakh Deo
Singh, resident of Mohalla-Shanti
Nagar, P.B. Road, Mihijam, P.O.
& P.S.-Mihijam, District-Jamtara,
PIN-815354 (Jharkhand).
......... Applicant
-Versus-
1. The Union of India, through
the Chairman-cum-Chief
Executive Officer, Ministry of
Railway, having office at Rail
Bhawan, Railway Board, Room
No.256-A, Raisina Road, New
Delhi-110001.
2. The Chairperson, Railway
Recruitment Board, Eastern
Railway, Kolkata, having office at
Metro Railway A.V. Complex,
Chitpur, opposite to R.G. Kar
Medical College & Hospital, R.G.
Kar Road, Kolkata-700037.
3. The Chairperson, Railway
Recruitment Cell, Eastern
Railway, Kolkata, 56,
Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata-
700012.
.......Respondents
For The Applicant(s): Mr. M. Tandan; Counsel
For The Respondent(s): Mr. S. Singha, Mr. A. K. Roy; Counsel
Digitally signed by UTKARSH JHA
UTKARSH
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=5165, OID.2.5.4.65=
133594473126687154pySd3T548hJkYS, Phone=
d9b37d12604e22491616e4be43745443ceb9dc6b6c897b9b058b2c8
0169b65de, PostalCode=812001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER=
87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac7172b7b88641da0dc7e7
1dd7d0a, CN=UTKARSH JHA
JHA Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.03.12 10:53:03+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2 O.A. No. 350/1416/2023
ORDER
Per: Mr. Diwakar Singh, Member (J)
Heard Ld. Counsel on both the sides.
2. The applicant has filed this Original Application seeking the following relief(s):
"(a) To quash and set aside the speaking order contained in Letter No. RRC/ER/OA/350/401/2023 dated 05.06.2023 passed by the Chairperson/ER (Respondent No.3) whereby and whereunder the claim of the applicant pursuant to the order passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal dated 30.03.2023 in O.A. No.350/401 of 2023 has been rejected.
(b) To direct the respondents to appointment the applicant on the post of Level-1 Post pursuant to the advertisement, being Centralised Employment Notice (CEN) NO. RRC-01/2019, dated 23.02.2019 under Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) category.
(c) To hold and declare that since the applicant has scored 38.06392 marks and the last cut off for OBC, SC and ST are 30.01352, 30.00658 and 30.45988 respectively, the applicant has indefeasible right to be appointed in view of the judgement in the case of Anamol Bhandari (supra), as approved in Aryan Raj (supra) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and followed by Hon'ble Telangana High Court in the case Sanjeeva Reddy (supra).
(d) For any other appropriate relief or reliefs to which the applicant is found to be entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case as also to do conscionable justice to the applicant.;"
FACTS OF THE CASE
3. The applicant, a person with benchmark disability (Locomotor Disability - 60%), had applied pursuant to Centralised Employment Notice (CEN) No. RRC-01/2019 dated 23.02.2019 (Annexure A/5) issued by the Railway Recruitment Cell, Eastern Railway, for Level-1 posts. 3.1. The applicant had also claimed his status as Course Completed Act Apprentice (CCAA), having undergone apprenticeship training from 09.08.2010 to 08.08.2013. A corrigendum dated 22.04.2022 (Annexure A/6) introduced Digitally signed by UTKARSH JHA UTKARSH DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=5165, OID.2.5.4.65= 133594473126687154pySd3T548hJkYS, Phone= d9b37d12604e22491616e4be43745443ceb9dc6b6c897b9b058b2c8 0169b65de, PostalCode=812001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac7172b7b88641da0dc7e7 1dd7d0a, CN=UTKARSH JHA JHA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.12 10:53:03+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 3 O.A. No. 350/1416/2023 weightage of one-third NCVT marks for CCAA candidates and exempted them from the Physical Efficiency Test. 3.2. The applicant then appeared in the Computer Based Test held on 22.09.2022. His normalized score was 18.45303. Upon addition of weightage marks as CCAA candidate, his final score stood at 38.06392.
3.3. However, the cut-off marks for CCAA candidates under different categories, as notified on 14.02.2023 (Annexure A/13), were: UR - 40.16915; OBC - 30.01352; SC - 30.00658;
ST - 30.45988. The applicant was not called for document verification. Aggrieved, he submitted representations dated 08.02.2023 and 06.03.2023 (Annexure A/14). 3.4. Upon non-consideration of the said representations, the applicant approached this Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation in O.A. No. 350/401/2023 which was disposed of by this Tribunal on 30.03.2023 (Annexure A/15) directing consideration of his representations.
3.5. Pursuant thereto, the claim of the applicant was rejected by the respondents, vide speaking order dated 05.06.2023 (Annexure A/17), on the ground that he did not secure marks up to the cut-off either under PwBD or UR category and that the benefit of horizontal reservation could be extended only under one category. The present O.A. challenges the said speaking order.
Digitally signed by UTKARSH JHA UTKARSH DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=5165, OID.2.5.4.65= 133594473126687154pySd3T548hJkYS, Phone= d9b37d12604e22491616e4be43745443ceb9dc6b6c897b9b058b2c8 0169b65de, PostalCode=812001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac7172b7b88641da0dc7e7 1dd7d0a, CN=UTKARSH JHA JHA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.12 10:53:03+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 4 O.A. No. 350/1416/2023 CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT
4. The applicant has contended that he secured 38.06392 marks, which is higher than the cut-off marks prescribed for OBC, SC and ST categories under CCAA. According to him, PwBD candidates are entitled to relaxation of 2% in qualifying marks and, therefore, his score exceeds the minimum qualifying threshold.
4.1. At hearing, Ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC categories have been granted the benefit of vertical reservation along with CCAA benefit, and denial of similar consideration to PwBD candidates is discriminatory. He has relied upon the judgments in Anamol Bhandari v. Delhi Technological University (2012 SCC OnLine Del 4788), Aryan Raj v. Chandigarh Administration (2020 SCC OnLine SC 1172) and Sanjeeva Reddy v. State of Telangana (2022 SCC OnLine TS 2928) to contend that persons with disabilities are to be treated at par with other reserved categories in matters of selection and that they cannot be excluded merely on technical application of cut-off norms when they have secured higher marks than the candidates appointed under other reserved categories.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
5. Per contra, the respondents have submitted that the applicant applied as a PwBD (LD) candidate and also claimed CCAA status. Both PwBD and CCAA fall within the ambit of Digitally signed by UTKARSH JHA UTKARSH DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=5165, OID.2.5.4.65= 133594473126687154pySd3T548hJkYS, Phone= d9b37d12604e22491616e4be43745443ceb9dc6b6c897b9b058b2c8 0169b65de, PostalCode=812001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac7172b7b88641da0dc7e7 1dd7d0a, CN=UTKARSH JHA JHA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.12 10:53:03+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 O.A. No. 350/1416/2023 horizontal reservation. According to them, the advantage of horizontal reservation can be extended only under one category.
5.1. It is further stated that the applicant's normalized score as PwBD candidate was 18.45303 and the cut-off for PwBD (LD) was 63.21117. After grant of weightage under CCAA, his final score became 38.06392, which remained below the UR cut-off of 40.16915. It is contended that he did not secure the minimum qualifying marks of 40% for UR category.
5.2. The respondents have further submitted that the judgments relied upon by the applicant are distinguishable on facts and relate to different selection processes.
ANALYSIS
6. We have considered the pleadings and submissions of both parties and examined the records placed before us. 6.1. The essential controversy in the present matter is whether the candidature of a PwBD candidate, who has secured marks higher than the cut-off prescribed for certain reserved categories under the same recruitment process, requires reconsideration in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aryan Raj v. Chandigarh Administration (supra).
6.2. The record indicates that the applicant's final score after application of CCAA weightage is 38.06392. It is also not in Digitally signed by UTKARSH JHA UTKARSH DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=5165, OID.2.5.4.65= 133594473126687154pySd3T548hJkYS, Phone= d9b37d12604e22491616e4be43745443ceb9dc6b6c897b9b058b2c8 0169b65de, PostalCode=812001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac7172b7b88641da0dc7e7 1dd7d0a, CN=UTKARSH JHA JHA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.12 10:53:03+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 6 O.A. No. 350/1416/2023 dispute that the cut-off for OBC, SC and ST categories under CCAA is lower than the applicant's score. The impugned speaking order proceeds on the premise that horizontal reservation benefit can be extended only under one category and that the applicant, having availed CCAA benefit, cannot simultaneously claim advantage as PwBD candidate. 6.3. At this stage, it becomes imperative to reproduce the relevant passages from the judgment dated 12.09.2012 passed on a similar issue in the case of Anamol Bhandari (supra) by the Hon'ble High Court at Delhi:-
"21. Reference to the aforesaid judgment is made by us to highlight the decision taken by the Government, and accepted by the Supreme Court that reservation for disabled is called horizontal reservation which cuts across all vertical categories such as SC, ST, OBC & General. Therefore, what was recognized was that since PWDs belonging to SC/ST categories, l.e., vertical categories enjoyed the relaxation which is provided to SC/ST categories, there is no reason not to give the same benefit/concession to those disabled who are in General Category or Other Backward Class Category as that process only would bring parity among all persons' disparity irrespective of their vertical categories. This itself provides for justification to accord same concession, viz., 10% concession to PWDs as well, in all categories which is extended to those PWDs who fall in the category of SC/ST.
22. All the aforesaid clinchingly demonstrates that the people suffering from disabilities are equally socially backward, if not more, as those belonging to SC/ST categories and therefore, as per the Constitutional Digitally signed by UTKARSH JHA UTKARSH DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=5165, OID.2.5.4.65= 133594473126687154pySd3T548hJkYS, Phone= d9b37d12604e22491616e4be43745443ceb9dc6b6c897b9b058b2c8 0169b65de, PostalCode=812001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac7172b7b88641da0dc7e7 1dd7d0a, CN=UTKARSH JHA JHA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.12 10:53:03+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 7 O.A. No. 350/1416/2023 mandates, they are entitled to at least the same benefit of relaxation as given to SC/ST candidates.
23. We, therefore, hold that the provision giving only 5% concession in marks to PWD candidates as opposed to 10% relaxation provided to SC/ST candidates is discriminatory and PWD candidates are also entitled to same treatment. The mandate is, accordingly, issued direction the DTU to provide 10% relaxation. Thus, the minimum eligibility requirement for persons belonging to PWD becomes 50% in PCM. Since the petitioner becomes eligible to be considered for admission in B.Tech. Course of DTU, his case may accordingly be considered for admission and if found eligible for admission on that basis, the same be granted to him forthwith.
24. Writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms."
6.4. In the case of Sanjeeva Reddy (supra), which is also relied upon by the applicant herein, the Hon'ble Telangana High Court had, on the basis of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court (supra), had observed and directed as under:-
"43. Reverting back to the decision of the Delhi High Court in Anamol Bhandari (supra), as already discussed above, Delhi High Court has held that persons with disabilities are equally socially backward as those belonging to SC/ST categories. Therefore, they are entitled to the same benefit of relaxation as given to SC/ST categories. This view of the Delhi High Court has been approved by the Supreme Court in Aryan Raj (supra) wherein it has been held that persons with disabilities are also socially backward; at the very least they are entitled to the same benefits as given to SC/ST candidates.
Digitally signed by UTKARSH JHA
UTKARSH DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=5165, OID.2.5.4.65= 133594473126687154pySd3T548hJkYS, Phone= d9b37d12604e22491616e4be43745443ceb9dc6b6c897b9b058b2c8 0169b65de, PostalCode=812001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac7172b7b88641da0dc7e7 1dd7d0a, CN=UTKARSH JHA JHA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.12 10:53:03+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 O.A. No. 350/1416/2023
44. In Vikas Kumar (supra) Supreme Court also discussed the principle of reasonable accommodation in the context of disability rights which finds its manifestation in the Disabilities Act. Supreme Court has explained that the principle of reasonable accommodation captures the positive obligation of the State and private parties to provide additiona participation in society. Without reasonable accommodation, the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14. 19 and 21 will ring hollow.
Reasonable accommodation is the instrumentality and an obligation of of equality and non-discrimination. Reference was made to the the society to enable the disabled to enjoy the constitutional guarantee observations in Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation (supra), where that in matters of providing relief to those who are differently abled, the Justice R.M. Lodha (as he then was) speaking for the Bench observed approach and attitude of the executive must be liberal and relief oriented and not obstructive or lethargic.
XXXXXXXXXXX
47. Thus, in view of what we have discussed above, we are of the view that the approach of the respondents fall far short of the constitutional mandate and principles of disability rights vis-à-vis reasonable accommodation while dealing with the case of the appellant. Not providing minimum qualifying marks for persons with disabilities at par with SC/ST candidates is wholly untenable. This aspect of the matter, it appears, escaped the attention of the learned Single Judge. That apart, limiting reservation for persons with disabilities to only two vacancies out of 151 notified vacancies, is contrary to the mandate of Section 34 of the Disabilities Act as well as the law laid down in National Federation of the Blind (supra).
48. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 02.12.2021 passed in W.P. No. 31524 of 2021 and allow the writ appeal by issuing the following directions: Digitally signed by UTKARSH JHA
UTKARSH DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=5165, OID.2.5.4.65= 133594473126687154pySd3T548hJkYS, Phone= d9b37d12604e22491616e4be43745443ceb9dc6b6c897b9b058b2c8 0169b65de, PostalCode=812001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac7172b7b88641da0dc7e7 1dd7d0a, CN=UTKARSH JHA JHA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.12 10:53:03+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 9 O.A. No. 350/1416/2023 (1) Let the cut-off mark for persons with disabilities in the notification dated 04.07.2021 be treated at par with SC/ST categories i.e., 30%;
(2) Those candidates belonging to the persons with disabilities category who had secured 30% or more marks in Paper-I, such as, the appellant who had secured 34 marks, their Paper-II shall be evaluated;
(3) Upon evaluation of Paper-II, if any of such candidates including the appellant secures more marks than the candidate already selected, l.e., Sri. Babu Rao, he/she shall be appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor in any available vacancy without disturbing the appointment of Sri. Babu Rao. If no vacancy is available, such a candidate shall be appointed by creating an ex-
cadre post; and (4) The above exercise shall be carried out within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order." 6.5. Drawing further from the ratio laid down in Anamol Bhandari, the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Aryan Raj (supra) acts as a candle held over the issue at our hands. The relevant paragraph from the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:-
"4. We are of the view that the High Court is correct on the bifurcation aspect. Further, insofar as the aptitude test having to be passed is concerned, the High Court is correct in saying that no exemption ought to be granted, but we follow the principle laid down in the Delhi High Court's judgment in Anamol Bhandari (Minor) through his father/Natural Guardian v. Delhi Technological University (2012) 131 DRJ 583 in which Digitally signed by UTKARSH JHA UTKARSH DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=5165, OID.2.5.4.65= 133594473126687154pySd3T548hJkYS, Phone= d9b37d12604e22491616e4be43745443ceb9dc6b6c897b9b058b2c8 0169b65de, PostalCode=812001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac7172b7b88641da0dc7e7 1dd7d0a, CN=UTKARSH JHA JHA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.12 10:53:03+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 10 O.A. No. 350/1416/2023 the High Court has correctly held that people suffering from disabilities are also socially backward, and are therefore, at the very least, entitled to the same benefits as given to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates."
6.6. In Aryan Raj (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court approved the principle that reservation for persons with disabilities is horizontal in nature and operates across vertical categories. The Hon'ble Court emphasized that persons with disabilities cannot be excluded from consideration merely on rigid compartmentalization if they otherwise satisfy merit standards vis-a-vis other reserved categories. The underlying ratio is that horizontal reservation must be harmoniously worked within the framework of vertical reservation so as to ensure meaningful participation of persons with disabilities. 6.7. At this stage, this Tribunal is not called upon to finally adjudicate comparative merit or to substitute the selection authority's assessment. However, the impugned speaking order does not reflect examination of the applicant's claim in the light of the binding principles laid down in the case of Anamol Bhandari (supra) decided by the Hon'ble High Court at Delhi followed by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aryan Raj (supra) and other related precedents. The rejection is founded primarily on the proposition that only one horizontal benefit can be granted, without analysing whether such interpretation results in denial of statutory protection Digitally signed by UTKARSH JHA UTKARSH DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=5165, OID.2.5.4.65= 133594473126687154pySd3T548hJkYS, Phone= d9b37d12604e22491616e4be43745443ceb9dc6b6c897b9b058b2c8 0169b65de, PostalCode=812001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac7172b7b88641da0dc7e7 1dd7d0a, CN=UTKARSH JHA JHA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.12 10:53:03+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 11 O.A. No. 350/1416/2023 contemplated under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
6.8. Having regard to the factual position that the applicant's score is higher than the cut-off of certain reserved categories under the same recruitment process, and, considering the legal principles governing horizontal reservation, we are of the view that the matter requires fresh consideration by the competent authority in the light of the judgments relied upon by the applicant.
CONCLUSION
7. In view of the above, the impugned speaking order dated 05.06.2023 is set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the candidature of the applicant afresh in the light of the principles laid down in Aryan Raj v. Chandigarh Administration (supra) and other applicable precedents relating to horizontal reservation for PwBD candidates, and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The outcome shall be communicated to the applicant forthwith. 7.1. It is made clear that this Tribunal has not expressed any opinion on the ultimate entitlement of the applicant.
8. The instant O.A. stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Diwakar Singh) (Anindo Majumdar)
Member (J) UJ Member (A)
Digitally signed by UTKARSH JHA
UTKARSH
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=5165, OID.2.5.4.65= 133594473126687154pySd3T548hJkYS, Phone= d9b37d12604e22491616e4be43745443ceb9dc6b6c897b9b058b2c8 0169b65de, PostalCode=812001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac7172b7b88641da0dc7e7 1dd7d0a, CN=UTKARSH JHA JHA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.12 10:53:03+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0