Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Samit Kumar vs Department Of Personnel And Training on 12 February, 2026
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi
O.A. No.2555/2025
Orders reserved on: 29.01.2026
Orders pronounced on: 12.02.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Samit Kumar
S/o Shri Mithilesh Kumar, Aged about 26 years
R/o WZ-495, Narayan Village,
South West Delhi-110028 ...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. S. N. Sharma)
VERSUS
1. Union of India, Through Secretary,
Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT),
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions,
North Block, New Delhi-110001
2. Secretary, Ministry of Statistics and Programme
Implementation,
Sardar Patel Bhawan,
Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001.
3. Staff Selection Commission (SSC)
Through its Chairman,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003 ....Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Hilal Haider)
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12
16:29:09+05'30'
Item No. 55/C-4 2 OA No. 2555/2025
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):
By filing the present O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:-
"(a) Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 14.05.2025 so issued by the respondents.
(b) Direct the Respondents to appoint the Applicant to the said post in the PwBD category with all consequential benefits, including seniority and notional pay fixation.
(c) Pass such further orders as may be deemed just and proper in the interest of justice."
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. As stated by the applicant, he applied for appointment to the post of Multi-Tasking Staff (Non-Technical) pursuant to the recruitment process conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) under the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) category, claiming reservation on account of Mental Illness (Bipolar Affective Disorder).The applicant was examined by a competent medical authority and was issued a disability certificate certifying benchmark disability of more than 40%, valid up to 03.11.2026. The said certificate was valid and subsisting at all material stages of the recruitment process. The applicant qualified the examination and his candidature was processed and forwarded by SSC to the user department for appointment.
2.1 However, vide impugned communication dated 14.05.2025, the candidature of the applicant was rejected on the ground that the NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12 16:29:09+05'30' Item No. 55/C-4 3 OA No. 2555/2025 disability certificate submitted by him was not a permanent disability certificate, but was valid for a specified period. 2.2 The applicant submitted representations contending that neither the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 nor the Rules framed thereunder require a disability to be permanent for availing reservation benefits, and that a valid benchmark disability certificate cannot be ignored.
2.3 As no relief was granted by the respondents, the applicant has approached this Tribunal by filing the present Original Application seeking quashing of the impugned rejection and consequential consideration for appointment under the PwBD category.
3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have filed reply opposing the claim of the applicant. CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT
4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that:-
4.1 The respondents failed to consider the facts while cancelling the candidature of the applicant on the basis of the policy dated 20.01.2025 which is certainly non-application of mind.
4.2 The respondents further failed to consider the facts while cancelling the candidature of the applicant at the time of document verification stage, as the respondents itself mentioned about the effect of the policy dated 20.01.2025 about the temporary certificate of disability admittedly that the said certificate will not make the employee eligible NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12 16:29:09+05'30' Item No. 55/C-4 4 OA No. 2555/2025 for reservation in promotion, however the present case is a case of fresh recruitment/appointment.
4.3 The cancellation of candidature of the applicant is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), particularly Section 2(r)which defines "person with benchmark disability" to include persons with at least 40% of a specified disability, regardless of whether such disability is permanent or temporary, however the applicant has 70% disability as per Disability Certificate issuedby competent authority under Rule 18(3) of the Rights of Personswith Disabilities Rules, 2017.
4.4 The denial of appointment solely on the ground of "temporary nature" of a medically certified mental illness, despite fulfilling all prescribed criteria, is discriminatory under Article 14and 16 of the Constitution and violative of equality in public employment.
4.5 The Respondents are estopped from denying appointment based on criteria not specified in the recruitment notification, where no distinction was made between temporary and permanent disability for mental illness which is contradictory to Advertisement Terms.
4.6 The Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) and Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment have issued guidelines that prohibit blanket exclusion of mentally ill candidates from jobs, especially if the post is identified assuitable, such cancellation is against the above said guidelines.
4.7 The applicant submitted a valid government-issued Disability Certificate under Form-IV of the RPwD Rules, 2017,issued by a Medical NEETU Digitally Board certifying that the applicant has a mental illness (Bipolar signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12 16:29:09+05'30' Item No. 55/C-4 5 OA No. 2555/2025 Affective Disorder) with 70% disability, categorized as "temporary" but valid as on the date of Document Verification and up to 03.11.2026 and certainly was disabled on the cut off date.
4.8 InPankaj Mahajan Vs. Kajal, (2011) 12 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasion to consider the nature of the said illness, i.e. BPAD in the context of a claim for divorce on the ground of the wife being incurably of unsound mind and considered that this disease is treatable but not curable i.e. permanent in nature, hence such cancellation is violation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment.
4.9 The National Institute of Mental Health, which comes under the United States Department of Health and Human Services, is the largest research organization in the world, specializing in mental illness and states in its Publication No. NIH Publication 19-MH-8088, that bipolar disorder is a lifelong illness, which has also been observed by the Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Jeevan Rana Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2015 Cri LJ 4619, wherein the Division Bench observed that Bipolar Disorder is a lifelong ailment.
4.10 While deciding a similar case where the petitioner was issued Temporary Disability Certificate in respect of same disability as applicant has, in case of Bhavya Nain Vs. High Court of Delhi W.P.(C) 5948/2019 vide judgment dated 08.05.2020,Delhi High Court considered disability of the petitioner i.e., Mental Illness (BPAD) as permanent disability and allowed the petitioner to be appointed against the reserved seat of Persons with Benchmark Disability and the case of the applicant is similarly situated and squarely covered.
NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12 16:29:09+05'30' Item No. 55/C-4 6 OA No. 2555/2025 CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
5. Learned counsel, by referring to the contents of the counter reply filed on 03.11.2025 on behalf of respondent no. 2, submitted that the SSC(Respondent No. 3) has issued Advertisement No. F. No. HQ- PPI03/26/2022-PP_1 dated 18.01.2023 (Annexure-R/1) for recruitment of Multi-Tasking (Non-Technical) Staff (in Pay Level-I as per Pay Matrix of 7th Pay Commission).In Para 3.1 of the aforementioned Advertisement, it is mentioned that Reservation will be provided for the Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Other Backward Classes (OBC), Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), Ex- servicemen (ESM) and Persons with Disabilities(PwD), etc. as per extant Govt. Orders. Para 4.1 of the aforementioned Advertisement, categorically mentions Permissible disabilities for Persons with Disabilities (PwBD) candidates.SSC vide its aforesaid Notification, in Annexures XII to XIV has specifically provided Forms V to VII i.e. proforma for Certificate of Disability for different types of disabilities (Annexure-R/2).In the mentioned three proformas, the details of Permanent physical impairment/mental disability/other disabilities have been sought as per Forms V to VII i.e. proforma for Certificate of Disability. It is also categorically mentioned in the above advertisement that the eligibility for reservation is to be decided as per extant Govt. Orders. In the above mentioned three proformas, the details of Permanent physical impairment/ mental disability/other disabilities have been sought. However, the SSC through its above advertisement Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12 SHARMA 16:29:09+05'30' Item No. 55/C-4 7 OA No. 2555/2025 dated 18.01.2023required the details of Permanent physical impairment/mental disability/other disabilities, the applicant submitted a certificate of temporary disability of Mental Illness (BPAD) (Annexure-R/3) with a specific validity period till 03.11.2026 for availing the benefit of reservation for appointment, which is not as per the Advertisement dated18.01.2023 issued by the SSC. It is also stated that as per Para 4.3 of the D/o Personnel & Training‟s (Respondent No.1) OM No.36012/1/2020-Estt. (Res.-II) dated 17.05.2022, no benefit of reservation shall be given on the basis of temporary certificate of disability in promotions (Annexure-R/4).
5.1 For the post of MTS, SSC has sought certificate for disability of permanent nature in Forms V to VII (Annexure XII to XV) i.e. proforma for Certificate of Disability of the SSC Advertisement No. HQ- PPI03/26/2022-PP 1dated 18.01.2023. However, the applicant has submitted a temporary disability certificate of Mental illness (BPAD) (Annexure-R/3) with a specific validity till 03.11.2026 for availing benefit of reservation under PwBD category for getting appointment in the post of MTS. The matter has been examined in consultation with D/o Personnel and Training (DoP&T) (Respondent No.1), the nodal Ministry of Govt. of India for the Service Matters and Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPwD), the nodal Ministry of Govt. of India for policy related matters for Persons with Disabilities. DoP&T vide its OM No.36035/5/2024-Estt.(Res-II) dated 07.03.2025(Annexure-R/5) forwarded a copy of clarification given by DEPwD vide OM No. P-13013/57/2023-Policy dated 20.01.2025 Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12 SHARMA 16:29:09+05'30' Item No. 55/C-4 8 OA No. 2555/2025 (Annexure-R/6) with respect to reservation to PwBD in Direct Recruitment on the basis of Temporary Disability Certificate. As per clarification received from DEPwD, applicants having temporary certificates are not eligible for reservation benefits for appointment through direct recruitment. Since the disability certificate of Mental illness (BPAD) with a specific validity till 03.11.2026 submitted by the applicant is of Temporary nature, which is not as per the instruction/guideline/extant orders of Govt. of India for availing the benefit of reservation under PwBD category, therefore, his candidature was cancelled vide this Ministry‟s (Respondent No. 2) letter dated 14.05.2025 (Annexure-R/7).
5.2 Learned counsel for the respondents contended that reservation under the PwBD category is intended only for candidates having permanent disability and that a certificate with limited validity does not confer a vested right. Reliance has been placed on DoPT O.M. dated 17.05.2022 and subsequent clarifications issued by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities to justify the rejection. It has further been contended that SSC is only a recruiting agency and determination of eligibility lies with the user department.
6. In response to the counter reply filed by the respondents, the applicant filed a rejoinder on 13.11.2025besides reiterating the averments and submissions as made in the O.A, it is submitted that the rejection of the applicant‟s candidature for the post of Multi-Tasking (Non-Technical) Staff under the PwBD category, solely on the ground NEETU Digitallythat his disability certificate is "temporary" and not "permanent," is signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12 16:29:09+05'30' Item No. 55/C-4 9 OA No. 2555/2025 arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,2016 (RPwD Act), the Rules framed thereunder, and Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. However, the applicant is having a disability of Mental Illness with „Bipolar Affective Disorder‟ which is also a lifelong disease and cannot be cured as considered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Pankaj Mahajan Vs. Kajal, (2011) 12 SCC 1.The applicant holds a valid disability certificate for Bipolar Affective Disorder (BPAD) issued by a competent medical authority, valid up to 03.11.2026. The said certificate is legally subsisting and confers full entitlement to reservation benefits under the PwBD category during its validity period.
6.1 In reply to respondents‟ assertion that only candidates with permanent disability certificates are eligible for reservation is untenable, the RPwD Act, 2016 which is a welfare legislation, defines "person with benchmark disability" in Section 2 (r) as one having not less than 40% of a specified disability as certified by the competent authority. It does not distinguish between "temporary" and "permanent" disabilities and as per Section 2 (r) "person with disability"
means a person with long terms physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which, in interaction with barriers, hinders his full and effective participation in society equally with others. The applicant is in the instant O.A. is having a disability of Mental Illness with „Bipolar Affective Disorder‟ which is also a lifelong disease which is treatable but not curable. Under Rule 18 (3) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017, if the disability is likely to improve, the medical authority Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12 SHARMA 16:29:09+05'30' Item No. 55/C-4 10 OA No. 2555/2025 may specify a period of validity for the certificate and direct reassessment thereafter. The disability remains recognized and valid during the prescribed validity. Hence, the applicant‟s certificate valid till 03.11.2026 fully satisfies statutory requirements.
6.2 Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the reliance on DoP&T OM dated 17.05.2022 and DEPwD clarification dated 20.01.2024, as forwarded by DoP&T vide O.M. dated 07.03.2025 is misplaced. Since, the DoP&T‟s OM dated 17.05.2022 pertains specifically to promotion and not direct recruitment. The present recruitment is by direct selection, hence, the said O.M. is inapplicable.
The DEPwD clarification dated 20.01.2025 cannot override statutory rights under the RPwD Act and Rules, being an executive instructions.
It has no legislative force and cannot curtail benefits conferred by Parliament [(Union of India Vs. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd.) reported in (AIR 1996 SC 3287)].
7. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3, by referring to the contents of the counter reply filed on 04.11.2025 on behalf of respondent no. 3, submitted that theSSC is only a recruiting agency responsible for conducting examinations based on recruitment rules and vacancies reported by user departments.SSC does not assess the suitability of candidates with benchmark disabilities nor does it determine reservation eligibility. These matters fall exclusively within the domain of the User Department (MoSPI).Since the rejection decision was taken by MoSPI, SSC asserts that it has no substantive role in the dispute.
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12
16:29:09+05'30'
Item No. 55/C-4 11 OA No. 2555/2025
8. In response thereto, learned counsel for the applicant has filed rejoinder on 13.11.2025, submitted that the SSC was the primary authority responsible for verifying the category of candidature, scrutinizing eligibility, and forwarding eligible candidates to the User Department. Therefore, SSC cannot claim that eligibility determination for PwBD reservation lies entirely with the User Department. Since the applicant applied under the PwBD category based on SSC‟s notice, a legitimate expectation was created, and SSC cannot absolve itself of procedural responsibility after processing and forwarding the candidature of the applicant. The learned counsel argues that SSC issued the advertisement, accepted the application, conducted the examination, declared the result, and forwarded the applicant‟s name; hence, it is a necessary and proper party for effective adjudication, and deleting it would render the proceedings defective. 8.1 Learned counsel for the applicant places reliance on judgments such as Union of India Vs. National Federation of the Blind,(2013) 10 SCC 772 and Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Manoj Kumar (2021) to assert that recruiting agencies are accountable for ensuring candidates are not deprived of reservation benefits due to administrative inconsistencies.
ANALYSIS
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the pleadings on record.The short question that arises for determination is whether a candidate possessing a valid disability NEETU Digitallycertificate indicating benchmark disability of more than 40%, but issued signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12 16:29:09+05'30' Item No. 55/C-4 12 OA No. 2555/2025 with a specified period of validity, can be denied reservation under the PwBD category solely on the ground that the certificate is not "permanent".
10. It is not in dispute that the applicant applied under the PwBD category on account of Mental Illness (Bipolar Affective Disorder).He was issued a disability certificate by a competent medical authority certifying 70% disability. The certificate was valid and subsisting at all relevant stages of the recruitment process. The applicant successfully qualified the examination and his candidature was forwarded to the user department. His candidature was rejected only on the ground that the disability certificate was temporary.
11. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) is a beneficial and welfare legislation intended to ensure substantive equality for persons with disabilities. Section 2(r) defines a "person with benchmark disability" as one having not less than 40% of a specified disability, as certified by the competent authority. Significantly, the statute does not make any distinction between permanent and temporary disabilities for the purpose of availing reservation.
12. Further, Rule 18(3) of the RPwD Rules, 2017 contemplates that where a disability is likely to improve, the medical authority may issue a certificate with a specified validity period and require reassessment thereafter. The very existence of such a provision demonstrates that a disability certificate with a validity period is nonetheless legally recognized during its subsistence.
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12
16:29:09+05'30'
Item No. 55/C-4 13 OA No. 2555/2025
13. Therefore, once a competent authority certifies benchmark disability and the certificate remains valid, the candidate cannot be denied statutory benefits.
14. The respondents have relied upon DoPT O.M. dated 17.05.2022 and the clarification issued by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities dated 20.01.2025 to contend that candidates possession temporary disability certificates are not eligible for reservation benefits.
15. This Tribunal finds the said reliance misplaced for the following reasons:-
1. The O.M. dated 17.05.2022 primarily pertains to reservation in promotion, whereas the present case concerns direct recruitment.
2. Executive instructions cannot override the provisions of a Parliamentary statute. It is a settled principle of law that administrative guidelines cannot curtail statutory rights.
3. The recruitment advertisement itself did not explicitly mandate that only permanent disability certificates would be accepted. Introducing such a condition at the stage of document verification amounts to changing the rules of the game after it has begun, which is impermissible in law.
16. The material placed on record indicates that Bipolar Affective Disorder is widely recognized as a serious mental condition that is often lifelong in nature, though manageable with treatment. Judicial NEETU Digitally precedents have also acknowledged the enduring character of such signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12 16:29:09+05'30' Item No. 55/C-4 14 OA No. 2555/2025 illness. Thus, the mere description of the certificate as "temporary" -- issued only for the purpose of periodic reassessment -- cannot be used to negate the existence of benchmark disability. Denying appointment to an otherwise eligible candidate solely on the ground that the disability certificate carries a validity period is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
17. Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in its Order/judgment dated 08.05.2020passed in W.P. (C) 5948/2019 in the matter of Bhavya Nain Vs. High Court of Delhi has observed as under:-
―49. The aforementioned medical literature and articles, as also the decision of the Supreme Court in Pankaj Mahajan (supra) and that of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Jeevan Rana (supra) lead us to conclude that Bipolar Affective Disorder (BPAD) is a serious lifelong and permanent incurable mental illness that can, at best, be suppressed with medications and treatment, but cannot be cured. There is a high rate of recurrence. People who suffer from Bipolar Disorder can live a healthy life, albeit they will have to take treatment all their lives. The petitioner has been suffering from Bipolar Affective Disorder since 2010, and on a perusal of the petitioner's prescriptions, we also observe that the petitioner has been under treatment since 2010. To say that the mental illness that afflicts the petitioner is not permanent in nature would be contrary to the medical literature above referred to. The respondent has not produced any authoritative medical view to the contrary on the nature of the mental illness of BPAD being ―temporary‖, i.e.of it getting fully and permanently cured during the lifetime of the patient. Moreover, the certificate certifies the extent of mental illness/ disability at45% and the certificate is valid for 5 years. Therefore, as per medical opinions, the extent of disability of the petitioner - who is under remission, is not likely to fall below 40% in the period of 5 years for which the certificate is valid. The respondents have no basis to assume that the disability would ever fall below 40% just because it is in remission and the petitioner's condition is likely to improve. The point is that while suffering from the benchmark disability of more than the specified limit, the petitioner has successfully competed with other PwD candidates. He is permanently disabled. He cannot be denied reservation on an assumed basis, as done by the respondent.
50. From the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it appears that the true reason why the respondent has rejected the petitioner's NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12 candidature is not that his mental illness is not of permanent nature, 16:29:09+05'30' Item No. 55/C-4 15 OA No. 2555/2025 or that it may fall below40%, but because the respondent is of the opinion that the medical condition of BPAD renders the petitioner incapable of rendering service as a Judicial Officer. In paragraphs 7 and 8 of the counter-affidavit, the respondent states:
―7. That, without prejudice, it is pertinent to note that, ultimately, the Petitioner is seeking appointment in the Judicial Service on the basis of claiming status as a ‗Person with Disability'. That in the event that the aforesaid Petition is allowed, the Petitioner is likely to be appointed as a Judge in the Delhi Judicial Service. However, admittedly, the said post carries with it great and multiple responsibilities, including a severely stressful work-life and environment.
8. That, without prejudice, it cannot be lost sight of that, as a consequence of the disability of Bipolar Affective Disorder (BPAD), even despite treatment with established methods and medication, a patient suffers from inability of think clearly, lack of attention and focus, memory problems etc. That further, the stress arising from the appointment being sought by the Petitioner is likely to exaggerate and worsen the disability of the Petitioner, thereby creating a risk not only for the service rendered but also towards the overall mental health and well- being of the Petitioner.‖ (emphasis supplied)
51. On one hand, the respondent has trivialised the ailment of the petitioner by stating that it is not of permanent nature, and that he would cease to be a PwD with bench mark disability, at some point of time, with his disability falling below 40%. On the other hand, in the aforesaid paragraphs, the respondent states that the condition of the petitioner is so severe that he may not be able to handle the stressful job of a Judicial Officer.
52. Once the posts are advertised - and seats are reserved for, inter alia, persons with mental illness, it is not open to the respondent to deny the petitioner reservation under the RPwD Act, merely on the basis of an opinion or belief entertained by it - that the petitioner would not be able to discharge his duties as a Judicial Officer due to his mental illness. This is a call that the Parliament has taken. The Law provides reservation, inter alia, to person with the enlisted benchmark disabilities which includes ―autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness‖. ―Mental illness‖ is explained in paragraph 3 of the Schedule to the RPwD Act and we have extracted hereinabove the relevant paragraph from the Schedule. There is no dispute that BPAD is a mental illness. This is clear from the medical certificate issued by the AIIMS to the petitioner and, even the respondent does not claim that BPAD - from which the petitioner suffers, is not a ―mental illness‖.
53. Pertinently, ―mental illness‖ does not include ―retardation which is a condition of arrested or incomplete development of mind of a person, specially characterised by sub normality of NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12 16:29:09+05'30' Item No. 55/C-4 16 OA No. 2555/2025 intelligence". Thus, ―mental illness‖ as defined in the Schedule relates to ―Mental behaviour‖, and it does not relate to intellectual deficit of the person on account of incomplete development of the mind. From the Medical Certificate issued to the petitioner, and the medical literature referred to above, it appears that mental illness, which relates to mental behaviour - as defined in the Schedule, is a condition which can be treated and kept under check with lifelong medication and treatment. It also appears that a person suffering from such like mental illness can - while under treatment, lead a normal life, though he may face up's and down's from time to time. It appears that the Parliament granted reservation, inter alia, to PwD - who suffer from mental illness (which does not include retardation, as taken note of hereinabove), so that such persons get an opportunity to lead a normal life with encouragement and dignity. Merely because they may need medication and treatment throughout their lives, or may suffer setbacks from time to time, cannot be a reason to deny them equal opportunity to assimilate in the society, make their contribution and have a life of dignity. Such persons have a fully developed mind like any normal human being. They may suffer from substantial disorder of thinking, mood, perception, orientation or memory that may grossly impair judgment, behaviour, capacity to recognise reality or ability to meet the ordinary demands of life, but with medication and treatment such manifestations can be kept at bay. The mere apprehension that the respondent has - that the petitioner may not be able to handle the responsibility and stress which a Judicial Officer faces, cannot be a reason to declare him medically ―unfit‖, or to say that he is not entitled to claim reservation. There is no medical opinion placed on record, or considered by the respondent, to come to the conclusion that a person - who is suffering from BPAD, and is under remission, would not be able to discharge his responsibilities as a Judicial Officer. Pertinently, there is no exemption granted by the appropriate Government referable to the proviso to Section 20(1) of the RPwD Act, which reads:
―(1) No Government establishment shall discriminate against any person with disability in any matter relating to employment:
Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section." (emphasis supplied)
54. The respondent, firstly, cannot discriminate against any person with disability in any matter relating to employment. Secondly, it has no competence to take a decision on the issue whether the post of a Judicial Officer should be exempted from the rigor of Section 20(1), having regard to the type of work carried out in the establishment of the judicial service. This decision rests with the appropriate Government. On the basis of a mere apprehension that there is a possibility that, in future, the petitioner's disability may deteriorate -
NEETU Digitally once he is appointed as a judicial officer and takes charge, and he may signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12 16:29:09+05'30' Item No. 55/C-4 17 OA No. 2555/2025 not be able to handle the responsibilities because of its stressful nature, cannot be a reason to deny him the benefit of reservation - to which he is statutorily entitled, and discriminate against him on the basis of his disability. Denial of reservation to the petitioner, which is his lawful right,is in clear breach of sections 20 and 34 of the RPwD Act.
55. In LIC of India v. Chief Commissioner for Disabilities & Anr. (2002)101 DLT 434, the Court held that a possible future eventuality cannot be aground to deny employment. The Court observed in paragraph 16 as follows:
―16. Learned counsel for the LIC submitted that the mental faculty of Respondent No. 2 would deteriorate with the passage of time, as dictated by the natural history of the disease. If that be so, and if it renders Respondent No. 2 unfit for work, his services can always, be dispensed with in accordance with the recruitment rules of the LIC, if they so permit. What may happen in future cannot be a ground to deny employment today.‖
56. Rule 3 of the RPwD Rules provides:
―3.Establishment not to discriminate on the ground of disability.- (1)The head of the establishment shall ensure that the provision of sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act are not misused to deny any right or benefit to persons with disabilities covered under the Act.‖
57. Section 3 of the RPwD Act reads as follows:
―3. (1) The appropriate Government shall ensure that the persons with disabilities enjoy the right to equality, life with dignity and respect for his or her integrity equally with others.
(2) The appropriate Government shall take steps to utilise the capacity of persons with disabilities by providing appropriate environment.
(3) No person with disability shall be discriminated on the ground of disability, unless it is shown that the impugned act or omission is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
(4) No person shall be deprived of his or her personal liberty only on the ground of disability.
(5) The appropriate Government shall take necessary steps to ensure reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities.‖
58. Section 2(h) and 2(y) of the RPwD Act read as follows:
(h) ―discrimination‖ in relation to disability, means any distinction, exclusion, restriction on the basis of disability NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA which is the purpose or effect of impairing or nullifying the SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12 16:29:09+05'30' Item No. 55/C-4 18 OA No. 2555/2025 recognition, enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field and includes all forms of discrimination and denial of reasonable accommodation;
x x x x x x x x x (y) ―reasonable accommodation‖ means necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments, without imposing a disproportionate or undue burden in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise of rights equally with others;‖
59. By denying the petitioner reservation under the RPwD Act, the respondent has breached the abovementioned provisions. When a government establishment provides reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities i.e. with specified disabilities to the extent stipulated, for any post, any candidate who fulfils the criteria must be assumed to be fit and proper for the post. The respondent could not have assumed that the petitioner would be unable to perform the duties of the post of a Judicial Officer.
60. In Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind, 156 (2009)DLT 446 (DB), the Supreme Court held as follows:
―23. India as a welfare State is committed to promote overall development of its citizens including those who are differently abled in order to enable them to lead a life of dignity, equality, freedom and justice as mandated by the Constitution of India. The roots of statutory provisions for ensuring equality and equalisation of opportunities to the differently abled citizens in our country could be traced in Part III and Part IV of the Constitution. For the persons with disabilities, the changing world offers more new opportunities owing to technological advancement, however, the actual limitation surfaces only when they are not provided with equal opportunities. Therefore, bringing them in the society based on their capabilities is the need of the hour.
x x x x x x x x x
50. Employment is a key factor in the empowerment and inclusion of people with disabilities. It is an alarming reality that the disabled people are out of job not because their disability comes in the way of their functioning rather it is social and practical barriers that prevent them from joining the work force. As a result, many disabled people live in poverty and in deplorable conditions. They are denied the right to make a useful contribution to their own lives and to the lives of their families and community.‖ (emphasis supplied) NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12 16:29:09+05'30' Item No. 55/C-4 19 OA No. 2555/2025
61. The respondent's reliance on Harneet Kaur (supra) is misplaced. In Harneet Kaur (supra), the petitioner was suffering from a temporary disability and, therefore, the Division Bench held that the benefit of the RPwD Act cannot be extended to persons with temporary disabilities. That is not the case in hand.
62. Reliance placed by Mr. Datar on Jadhav Vishwas Haridas (supra) is misplaced. That was a case under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights And Full Participation) Act, 1995. The grievance of the petitioner/ appellant in that case was denial of reservation under Section 33 of that Act to persons with mental illness. In that context, the Court made the observations taken note of hereinabove. Those observations, in the context of the present case, have no bearing.
63. The intent and object of the RPwD Act is to protect and preserve the rights of disabled persons, and employment is an essential aspect of utmost importance and the RPwD Act has to be read liberally, keeping in mind that it is a beneficial and social welfare legislation which has to be given effect to in order to protect the rights of the PwD, and not to defeat their rights. In LIC of India (supra), the Learned Single Judge observed in the context of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights And Full Participation) Act, 1995 as follows:
―22. The Act, being a beneficial legislation, required some affirmative action to be taken on the part of LIC and other authorities. V. Finkelstein and S. French, as quoted in ―Disability: Challenges v. Responses‖ by Ali Baquer and Anjali Sharma have said that:-
―Disability is the loss or limitation of opportunities that prevents people who have impairments from taking part in the normal life of the community on an equal level with others due to physical and social barriers.‖
23. It is for this reason that one of the great world leaders, Nelson Mandela said (as quoted in Disability: Challenges v.Responses) -
―All countries today need to apply affirmative action to ensure that the women and the disabled are equal to all of us.‖
64. In Babita Pathak & Ors. V. High Court of Delhi & Ors., 2013 (135)DRJ 382, this Court emphasized the fact that the Persons with Disabilities(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights And Full Participation) Act, 1995 is a piece of beneficial legislation. This Court held:
―11. Mr. Datar, appearing on behalf of the High Court of Delhi, submitted that the said Act being a beneficial/welfare legislation enacted to benefit the persons with disabilities NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA had been enacted with the object and purpose of giving SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12 16:29:09+05'30' Item No. 55/C-4 20 OA No. 2555/2025 effect to the proclamation on the full participation and equality of the persons with disabilities as also to ensure equal opportunities and protection of the rights of full participation of such persons. That being the case, it was submitted that the said Act ought to be given a liberal, purposive and constructive interpretation in favour of the persons with disabilities. For this proposition, he placed reliance on Bata India Ltd. v. Union of India,180 (2011)DLT 351 (DB):2011 (124) DRJ 188 [DB]; National Federation of the Blind v. Union of India,156 (2009) DLT 446 (DB), Kunal Singh v. Union of India,(2003) 4 SCC 524andGNCTDv.All India Confederation of the Blind,128 (2006) DLT 695 (DB).
12. In Bata India Limited(supra), a Division Bench of this court, had, in turn, referred to various decisions of the Supreme Court to arrive at the conclusion that a beneficial legislation is to be interpreted in favour of the beneficiaries when it is possible to take two views of a provision. The first decision referred to in Bata India Ltd.(supra) was that of Bharat Singh v. Management of New Delhi Tuberculosis Centre, New Delhi,(1986) 2 SCC 614,wherein the Supreme Court held as under:--
―Now, it is trite to say that acts aimed at socialamelioration giving benefits for the have- nots should receive liberal construction. It is always the duty of the Court to give such a construction to a statute as would promote the purpose or object of the Act. A construction that promotes the purpose of the legislation should be preferred to a literal construction. A construction which would defeat the rights of have--nots and the underdog and which would lead to injustice should always be avoided.‖
13. Similarly, in S.M. Nilajkar v. Telecom District Manager ,Karnataka,(2003) 4 SCC 27, another decision referred to in Bata India Limited(supra), the Supreme Court observed as under:--
―12 It is well settled by a catena of decisions that labour laws being beneficial pieces of legislationare to be interpreted in favour of the beneficiaries in case of doubt or where it is possible to take two views of a provision‖
14. A word of caution, however, was sounded in Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh v. Management of Usha Breco Limited,(2008) 5SCC 554, which has also been noted in Bata India Limited(supra). In Usha Breco (supra), the Supreme Court observed as under:--
―26. It may not be a correct approach for a NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA superior court to proceed on the premise that an SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12 16:29:09+05'30' Item No. 55/C-4 21 OA No. 2555/2025 Act is a beneficient legislation in favour of the management or the workmen. The provisions of the statute must be construed having regard to the tenor of the terms used by Parliament. The court must onstrue the statutory provision with a view to uphold the object and purport of Parliament. It is only in a case. where there exists a grey area and the court feels difficulty in interpreting or in construing and applying the statute, the doctrine of beneficient construction can be taken recourse to. Even cases where such a principle is resorted to, the same would not mean that the statute should be interpreted in a manner which would take it beyond the object and purport thereof.‖
15. In similar vein is the decision of the Supreme Court in Edukanti Kistamma (Dead) Through LRs v. S. Venkatareddy(Dead) Through LRs,(2010) 1 SCC 756
16. In National Federation of Blind(supra), a Division Bench of this court held as under:--
―16. The Disabilities Act was enacted for protection of the rights of the disabled in various spheres like education, training, employment and to remove any discrimination against them in the sharing of development benefits vis-a-vis non- disabled persons. In the light of the legislative aim it is necessary to give purposive interpretation to Section 33 with a view to achieve the legislative intendment of attaining equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities.,‖
17. In Kunal Singh(supra), the Supreme Court held asunder:--
―9. In construing a provision of a social beneficial enactment that too dealing with disabled persons intended to give them equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation, the view that advances the object of the Act and serves its purpose must be preferred to the one which obstructs the object and paralyses the purpose of the Act. Language of Section 47 is plain and certain casting statutory obligation on the employer to protect an employee acquiring disability during service.‖ NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12 16:29:09+05'30' Item No. 55/C-4 22 OA No. 2555/2025
18. In GNCTD v. All India Confederation of the Blind(supra),a Division Bench of this court observed, with reference to the said Act, that it was a welfare legislation and, therefore, if two views were possible, the interpretation which was in favour of the handicapped persons, ought to be adopted.
From the above decisions, which have been relied upon by Mr Datar, it becomes clear that social welfare legislations ought to be given a beneficial and purposive construction which advances the object of the legislation. Of course, such an interpretation would only be possible where the provision is open to more than one meaning and is in keeping with the legislative intent.
19. It was also contended by Mr Datar that the said Act, which includes the said Section 36, is a piece of legislation which, is aimed at the amelioration of persons with disabilities. The said Act does not contemplate or intend to create or grant any rights in favour of persons, other than those with disabilities......
x x x x x x x x x
34. .........The intent and purport behind the said provision is to bring the persons with disabilities into mainstream activities and to enable them to contribute to society in general. The persons with disabilities are not to be discarded from the society at large. They are useful and productive members of society despite their disabilities and the purpose behind the Act is to give them an equal opportunity to contribute to society so that they are fully able to participate in national life. It is clear that the Act is meant for the benefit of the disabled.‖ (emphasis supplied)
65. The aforesaid observations apply with equal force in respect of the RPwD Act, which is the improved and later version of the earlier Act taken note of hereinabove.
66. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we allow this writ petition and set aside the notice dated 21.5.2019 insofar as it declares the petitioner's disability to be not permanent. We accordingly direct the respondent to declare the petitioner as selected to the Delhi Judicial Service without any further delay, since, undisputedly, he is the only qualified candidate in the ‗mental illness' category. Upon his appointment, the petitioner would retain his notional seniority along with his other batchmates and he would be deemed to have joined his post along with his other batchmates, though he would not be entitled to any back wages. It goes without saying that the respondent shall issue necessary orders regarding the petitioner's Induction training for Judicial Officers.
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12
16:29:09+05'30'
Item No. 55/C-4 23 OA No. 2555/2025
67. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs‖
18. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. National Federation of the Blind (supra) emphasized that reservation for persons with disabilities must be implemented in letter and spirit, and that procedural or technical barriers should not defeat the object of the legislation. A welfare statute must receive a purposive interpretation rather than a restrictive one.
19. The contention of the Staff Selection Commission that it is merely a recruiting agency does not materially affect the adjudication of the present dispute, as the impugned decision emanates from the user department. Nevertheless, being the authority that conducted the recruitment and processed the candidature, SSC remains a proper party to ensure effective implementation of this order.
20. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Tribunal holds that a valid benchmark disability certificate cannot be disregarded merely because it specifies a period of validity, the rejection of the applicant‟s candidature is contrary to the RPwD Act, 2016 and the Rules framed thereunder and the impugned order dated 14.05.2025 (Annexure- A/1) is arbitrary and unsustainable in law.
21. Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed, with the following directions:
a. The impugned order dated 14.05.2025 (Annexure-A/1) is hereby quashed and set aside;Digitally signed by
NEETU NEETU SHARMA
Date: 2026.02.12
SHARMA 16:29:09+05'30'
Item No. 55/C-4 24 OA No. 2555/2025
b. The respondents are directed to refer the applicant to a duly
constituted Medical Board at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, for reassessment of his disability. The Medical Board shall necessarily include a specialist in the relevant field corresponding to the nature of disability suffered by the applicant. The Medical Board shall conduct the examination and submit its report to the respondents within a period of 06 (six) weeks from the date of medical examination of the applicant;
c. Upon receipt and consideration of the Medical Board‟s report, if the applicant is found to be fit and eligible for appointment under the PwBD category, the respondents shall consider and process his appointment to the post of Multi-Tasking Staff (Non- Technical), subject to fulfillment of all other eligibility conditions, within a period of 04 (four) weeks from the date of receipt of the Medical Board‟s report. In the event of denial of appointment, the respondents shall pass a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law and keeping in view the observations and analysis contained herein.
d. In the event of the applicant‟s appointment pursuant to this order, he shall be entitled to notional seniority and notional pay fixation from the date on which his immediate junior(s) was/were appointed, without entitlement to arrears of actual monetary benefits, unless otherwise directed.
22. No order as to costs.
23. Pending MA (s), if any, stand closed.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/neetu/
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12
16:29:09+05'30'