Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Pardeep Kumar vs Gnctd on 30 April, 2026
1
Item No. 89 O.A. No. 4278/2025
Court No. IV
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 4278/2025
Reserved on : 15.04.2026
Pronounced on: 30.04.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
Pardeep Kumar,
Aged about 39 years, Son of Mr. Nathu Ram,
Resident of village Tikri Kalan, P.O. Dhani Phogat,
Tehsil & District: Charkhi Dadri, Haryana: 127306.
Mobile phone no. 9812374416
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Pardeep Kumar)
Versus
1. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi
[through/service to be effected upon:
Its Chief Secretary, at: 5th Level,
Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002]
2. Directorate of Training & Technical Education,
Government of N.C.T. of Delhi,
[Service to be effected upon/through its Secretary, at:
Muni Mayaram Marg, Pitampura, Delhi-110034]
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Dr. Monika Bhargava)
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:13:07
ANI +05'30'
2
Item No. 89 O.A. No. 4278/2025
Court No. IV
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present Original Application has been filed challenging the arbitrary and illegal cancellation of the applicant's candidature/appointment as Craft Instructor (Welder) vide order dated 29.08.2025, despite the applicant having been duly selected after due scrutiny by the competent committee and having already accepted the offer of appointment on 27.11.2024.
1.1. Learned counsel contended that the impugned "Deficiency Memorandum" dated 05.06.2025 is wholly unsustainable as the applicant was held eligible under the PwD category as per the recruitment process, the governing DGT instructions, and the applicable statutory framework under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
1.2. Learned counsel argued that Multiple Disability (MD) was wrongly treated as ineligible for the post of Welder despite the applicant's appointment already being processed and accepted, and the subsequent cancellation is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 311 of the Constitution, as well as settled principles of natural justice.
1.3. Concluding the arguments, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts, the present OA is filed seeking quashing of the cancellation order dated 29.08.2025 and restoration of applicant's appointment to the post of 'Craft Instructor -Welder' with all consequential benefits.
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:13:07 ANI +05'30' 3 Item No. 89 O.A. No. 4278/2025 Court No. IV
2. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the present Original Application is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed, as the applicant admittedly applied under the UR-PwD (Multiple Disability) category pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/23, which specifically earmarked the vacancy for MD, but failed to produce a valid certificate establishing Multiple Disability. Learned counsel added that the applicant holds a certificate for locomotor disability (amputation), which falls under a distinct category.
2.1. Learned counsel contended that the entire selection process was governed strictly by the terms of the advertisement and applicable rules, and the applicant's provisional nomination and offer of appointment were expressly subject to verification of eligibility documents, which, upon scrutiny and clarification from the Civil Surgeon, revealed that the applicant did not meet the essential eligibility condition for the advertised category.
2.2. Learned counsel argued that it is a well settled law that no right to appointment accrues from provisional selection, and permitting the applicant to claim appointment against an MD-reserved post would amount to misappropriation of a reserved vacancy and violate the rights of genuinely eligible candidates.
3. In rejoinder to the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondents have selectively relied on notification dated 04.01.2021 (Annexure R-1) and ignored relevant guidelines on post identification, especially the point that a post already held by a benchmark disability category should be deemed identified for that category.
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:13:07 ANI +05'30' 4 Item No. 89 O.A. No. 4278/2025 Court No. IV
4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
5. ANALYSIS :
5.1. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the candidature of the applicant for the post of Craft Instructor-Welder could have been rejected solely on the ground that the post was earmarked for PwD-MD (Multiple Disability), while the applicant belongs to the PwD-OH (Orthopedically Handicapped) category.
5.2. Some of the relevant provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which are material for adjudication of the present case, are as under:
"2. Definations:
...
(r) "person with benchmark disability" means a person with not less than forty per cent. of a specified disability where specified disability has not been defined in measurable terms and includes a person with disability where specified disability has been defined in measurable terms, as certified by the certifying authority;
(s) "person with disability" means a person with long term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which, in interaction with barriers, hinders his full and effective participation in society equally with others (u) "prescribed" means prescribed by rules made under this Act (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; (zc) "specified disability" means the disabilities as specified in the Schedule;
Section 33. Identification of posts for reservation.--The appropriate Government shall--
(i) identify posts in the establishments which can be held by respective category of persons with benchmark disabilities in respect of the vacancies reserved in accordance with the provisions of section 34;
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:13:07 ANI +05'30' 5 Item No. 89 O.A. No. 4278/2025 Court No. IV
(ii) constitute an expert committee with representation of persons with benchmark disabilities for identification of such posts; and
(iii) undertake periodic review of the identified posts at an interval not exceeding three years.
Section 34. Reservation.--(1) Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every Government establishment, not less than four per cent. of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength in each group of posts meant to be filled with persons with benchmark disabilities of which, one per cent. each shall be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (a), (b) and (c) and one per cent. for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (d) and (e), namely:--
(a) blindness and low vision;
(b) deaf and hard of hearing;
(c) locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy;
(d) autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness;
(e) multiple disabilities from amongst persons under clauses (a) to (d) including deaf-blindness in the posts identified for each disabilities:
Provided that the reservation in promotion shall be in accordance with such instructions as are issued by the appropriate Government from time to time:
Provided further that the appropriate Government, in consultation with the Chief Commissioner or the State Commissioner, as the case may be, may, having regard to the type of work carried out in any Government establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notifications exempt any Government establishment from the provisions of this section. (2) Where in any recruitment year any vacancy cannot be filled up due to non-availability of a suitable person with benchmark disability or for any other sufficient reasons, such vacancy shall be carried forward in the succeeding recruitment year and if in the succeeding recruitment year also suitable person with benchmark disability is not available, it may first be filled by interchange among the five categories and only when there is no person with disability available for the post in that year, the employer shall fill up the vacancy by appointment of a person, other than a person with disability:
Provided that if the nature of vacancies in an establishment is such that a given category of person cannot be employed, the vacancies may be interchanged among the five categories with the prior approval of the appropriate Government.
(3) The appropriate Government may, by notification, provide for such relaxation of upper age limit for employment of persons with benchmark disability, as it thinks fit. "
THE SCHEDULE ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:13:07 ANI +05'30' 6 Item No. 89 O.A. No. 4278/2025 Court No. IV [See clause (zc) of section 2] SPECIFIED DISABILITY A. Locomotor disability (a person's inability to execute distinctive activities associated with movement of self and objects resulting from affliction of musculoskeletal or nervous system or both), including--
(a) "leprosy cured person" means a person who has been cured of leprosy but is suffering from--
(i) loss of sensation in hands or feet as well as loss of sensation and paresis in the eye and eye-lid but with no manifest deformity;
(ii) manifest deformity and paresis but having sufficient mobility in their hands and feet to enable them to engage in normal economic activity;
(iii) extreme physical deformity, as well as advanced age which prevents him/her from undertaking any gainful occupation, and the expression "leprosy cured" shall construed accordingly;
(b) "cerebral palsy" means a Group of non-progressive neurological condition affecting body movements and muscle coordination, caused by damage to one or more specific areas of the brain, usually occurring before, during or shortly after birth;
(c) "dwarfism" means a medical or genetic condition resulting in an adult height of 4 feet 10 inches (147 centimeters) or less;
(d) "muscular dystrophy" means a group of hereditary genetic muscle disease that weakens the muscles that move the human body and persons with multiple dystrophy have incorrect and missing information in their genes, which prevents them from making the proteins they need for healthy muscles. It is characterised by progressive skeletal muscle weakness, defects in muscle proteins, and the death of muscle cells and tissue;
(e) "acid attack victims" means a person disfigured due to violent assaults by throwing of acid or similar corrosive substance. B. Visual impairment--
(a) "blindness" means a condition where a person has any of the following conditions, after best correction--
(i) total absence of sight; or
(ii) visual acuity less than 3/60 or less than 10/200 (Snellen) in the better eye with best possible correction; or
(iii) limitation of the field of vision subtending an angle of less than 10 degree.
(b) "low-vision" means a condition where a person has any of the following conditons, namely:--
(i) visual acuity not exceeding 6/18 or less than 20/60 upto 3/60 or upto 10/200 (Snellen) in the better eye with best possible corrections; or
(ii) limitation of the field of vision subtending an angle of less than 40 degree up to 10 degree.
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:13:07 ANI +05'30' 7 Item No. 89 O.A. No. 4278/2025 Court No. IV C. Hearing impairment--
(a) "deaf" means persons having 70 DB hearing loss in speechfrequencies in both ears;
(b) "hard of hearing" means person having 60 DB to 70 DB hearing loss in speech frequencies in both ears;
D. "speech and language disability" means a permanent disability arising out of conditions such as laryngectomy or aphasia affecting one or more components of speech and language due to organic or neurological causes.
2. Intellectual disability, a condition characterised by significant limitation both in intellectual functioning (rasoning, learning, problem solving) and in adaptive behaviour which covers a range of every day, social and practical skills, including--
(a) "specific learning disabilities" means a heterogeneous group of conditions wherein there is a deficit in processing language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself as a difficulty to comprehend, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations and includes such conditions as perceptual disabilities, dyslexia, dysgraphia, dyscalculia, dyspraxia and developmental aphasia;
(b) "autism spectrum disorder" means a neuro-developmental condition typically appearing in the first three years of life that significantly affects a person's ability to communicate, understand relationships and relate to others, and is frequently associated with unusal or stereotypical rituals or behaviours.
3. Mental behaviour,--
"mental illness" means a substantial disorder of thinking, mood, perception, orientation or memory that grossly impairs judgment, behaviour, capacity to recognise reality or ability to meet the ordinary demands of life, but does not include retardation which is a conditon of arrested or incomplete development of mind of a person, specially characterised by subnormality of intelligence.
4. Disability caused due to--
(a) chronic neurological conditions, such as--
(i) "multiple sclerosis" means an inflammatory, nervous system disease in which the myelin sheaths around the axons of nerve cells of the brain and spinal cord are damaged, leading to demyelination and affecting the ability of nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord to communicate with each other;
(ii) "parkinson's disease" means a progressive disease of the nervous system marked by tremor, muscular rigidity, and slow, imprecise movement, chiefly affecting middle-aged and elderly people associated with degeneration of the basal ganglia of the brain and a deficiency of the neurotransmitter dopamine.
(b) Blood disorder--
(i) "haemophilia" means an inheritable disease, usually affecting only male but transmitted by women to their male children, characterised by loss or impairment of the normal clotting ability of blood so that a minor would may result in fatal bleeding;
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:13:07 ANI +05'30' 8 Item No. 89 O.A. No. 4278/2025 Court No. IV
(ii) "thalassemia" means a group of inherited disorders characterised by reduced or absent amounts of haemoglobin.
(iii) "sickle cell disease" means a hemolytic disorder characterised by chronic anemia, painful events, and various complications due to associated tissue and organ damage; "hemolytic" refers to the destruction of the cell membrane of red blood cells resulting in the release of hemoglobin.
5. Multiple Disabilities (more than one of the above specified disabilities) including deaf blindness which means a condition in which a person may have combination of hearing and visual impairments causing severe communication, developmental, and educational problems.
6. Any other category as may be notified by the Central Government."
5.3. While a precise definition for Multiple Disabilities is not explicitly provided, an examination of Section 34 of the Act, when read in conjunction with the Schedule indicates that an individual satisfying the criteria outlined in more than one of clauses (a) through (d) of SPECIFIED DISABILITY, as defined in Section 2(zc) of the Act, is deemed to possess multiple disabilities.
5.4. The applicant is stated to be suffering from a locomotor disability, involving amputation of the left thumb, index finger, and middle finger. The said impairment is certified as constituting more than 40% benchmark disability. The question that arises for consideration is whether such a condition, by itself, can be construed as "Multiple Disability".
5.5. Section 2(o) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (1 of 1996) defines "locomotor disability" as a disability of the bones, joints, or muscles leading to substantial restriction of movement of the limbs, or any form of cerebral palsy.
5.6. The National Trust for the Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999, under ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:13:07 ANI +05'30' 9 Item No. 89 O.A. No. 4278/2025 Court No. IV Section 2(h), defines "Multiple Disabilities" as a combination of two or more disabilities as defined in clause (i) of Section 2 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (1 of 1996).
5.7. In exercise of powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 100 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (49 of 2016) , Rule 2017 were framed:-
"Rule 18. deals with - Issue of certificate of disability.- (1) On receipt of an application under rule 17, the medical authority or any other notified competent authority shall, verify the information as provided by the applicant and shall assess the disability in terms of the relevant guidelines issued by the Central Government and after satisfying himself that the applicant is a person with disability, issue a certificate of disability in his favour in Form V, VI and VII, as the case may be.
(2) The medical authority shall issue the certificate of disability within a month from the date of receipt of the application. (3) The medical authority shall, after due examination -
(i) issue a permanent certificate of disability in cases where there are no chances of variation of disability over time in the degree of disability; or
(ii) issue a certificate of disability indicating the period of validity, in cases where there is any chance of variation over time in the degree of disability.
(4) If an applicant is found ineligible for issue of certificate of disability, the medical authority shall convey the reasons to him in writing under Form VIII within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the application.
(5) The State Government and Union territory Administration shall ensure that the certificate of disability is granted on online platform from such date as may be notified by the Central Government.
Rule 19 contemplates that Certificate issued under rule 18 to be generally valid for all purposes.- A person to whom the certificate issued under rule 18 shall be entitled to apply for facilities, concessions and benefits admissible for persons with disabilities under schemes of the Government and of non-Governmental organizations funded by the Government. Rule 20. provides for Validity of certificate of disability issued under the repealed Act.-
The certificate of disability issued under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (1 of 1996) shall continue to be valid after the commencement of the Act for the period specified therein."
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:13:07 ANI +05'30' 10 Item No. 89 O.A. No. 4278/2025 Court No. IV 5.8. Pursuant to Rule 18(1), the Certificate of Disability FORM -V is prescribed as follows:
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:13:07 ANI +05'30' 11 Item No. 89 O.A. No. 4278/2025 Court No. IV 5.9. In cases of multiple disabilities, Rule 18(1) -FORM -VI is prescribed for the issuance of certificate of Disability which is reproduced as under :-
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:13:07 ANI +05'30' 12 Item No. 89 O.A. No. 4278/2025 Court No. IV 5.10. The object and scope of the Act, as evident from its various provisions, clearly indicate that the Legislature, while defining the term "industry" under Section 2(j) of the Act, has deliberately used a term of wide import in its first clause and has referred to several other industries in the second clause in an inclusive manner, thereby indicating an expansive intent. In construing the said definition, it is therefore not appropriate to apply the maxim noscitur a sociis so as to restrict its meaning. The said ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:13:07 ANI +05'30' 13 Item No. 89 O.A. No. 4278/2025 Court No. IV maxim is only a rule of construction and can be invoked where the legislative intent in associating terms of wider import with those of narrower import is unclear or the meaning of the wider terms is doubtful (See: State of Bombay & Ors. v. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha & Ors., 1960 (2) SCR 866).
5.11. The question of reasonable accomodation is very wide and inclusive concept so is the definition of disability.
5.11.1 In Civil Appeal No(s). 6785 of 2023 [arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 12671 of 2022] - Mohamed Ibrahim vs. The Chairman & Managing Director & Ors., decided on 16.10.2023, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"The twin conditions of falling within defined categories, and also a threshold condition of a minimum percentage, of such disabilities, in fact are a barrier. The facts of this case demonstrate that the appellant is fit, in all senses of the term, to discharge the duties attached to the post he applied and was selected for. Yet, he is denied the position, for being "disabled" as he is colour blind. At the same time, he does not fit the category of PWD under the lexicon of the universe contained within the Act. These challenges traditional understandings of what constitute "disabilities". The court has to, therefore, travel beyond the provisions of the Act and discern a principle which can be rationally applied.
(c) locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy;
(d) autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness;
(e) multiple disabilities from amongst persons under clauses (a) to (d) including deaf-blindness in the posts identified for each disabilities:
Provided that the reservation in promotion shall be in accordance with such instructions as are issued by the appropriate Government from time to time:
Provided further that the appropriate Government, in consultation with the Chief Commissioner or the State Commissioner, as the case may be, may, having regard to the type of work carried out in any Government establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notifications exempt any Government establishment from the provisions of this section.
21. In Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India this court observed: "40. In international human rights law, equality is founded upon two complementary principles: non-discrimination and reasonable ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:13:07 ANI +05'30' 14 Item No. 89 O.A. No. 4278/2025 Court No. IV differentiation. The principle of non-discrimination seeks to ensure that all persons can equally enjoy and exercise all their rights and freedoms. Discrimination occurs due to arbitrary denial of opportunities for equal participation. For example, when public facilities and services are set on standards out of the reach of persons with disabilities, it leads to exclusion and denial of rights. Equality not only implies preventing discrimination (example, the protection of individuals against unfavourable treatment by introducing anti- discrimination laws), but goes beyond in remedying discrimination against groups suffering systematic discrimination in society. In concrete terms, it means embracing the notion of positive rights, affirmative action and reasonable accommodation."
22. Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India highlighted on the right to equality and underlined the two aspects: formal equality and substantive equality. It stated that substantive equality aims at producing equality of outcomes, and in the context of the case, observed that the "principle of reasonable accommodation is one of the means for achieving substantive equality, pursuant to which disabled individuals must be reasonably accommodated based on their individual capacities." The court recollected Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission25, which held as follows "The principle of reasonable accommodation acknowledges that if disability" should be remedied and opportunities are "to be affirmatively created for facilitating the development of the disabled. Reasonable accommodation is founded in the norm of inclusion. Exclusion results in the negation of individual dignity and worth or they can choose the route of reasonable accommodation, where each individual's dignity and worth is respected."
23. It was also noted that provisions of Chapters VII and VIII of the Act are in furtherance of the principle of reasonable accommodation which is a component of the guarantee of equality. This has been recognised by a line of precedent. This court, in multiple cases has held that the principle of reasonable differentiation, recognising the different needs of persons with disabilities is a facet of the principle of equality.
24. The significant impact of Vikash Kumar (supra) is that the case dealt with a person with a chronic neurological condition resulting in Writer's Cramp, experiencing extreme difficulty in writing. He was denied a scribe for the civil services exam by the UPSC, because he did not come within the definition of person with benchmark disability (40% or more of a specified disability). This court, rejected this stand, and held him to be a person with disability. It was also stated that the provision of scribe to him fell within the scope of reasonable accommodation. The Court said:
"... the accommodation which the law mandates is 'reasonable' because it has to be tailored to the requirements of each condition of disability. The expectations which every disabled person has are unique to the nature of the disability and the character of the impediments which are encountered as its consequence..."
25. The appellant is, for all purposes, treated as a person with disability, but does not fall within the categories defined in the Act, nor does he possess the requisite benchmark eligibility condition. The objective material on the record shows that the colour vision impairment is mild. Yet, TANGEDCO's concerns cannot be characterised as unreasonable. However, TANGEDCO is under an obligation to work under the framework of "reasonable accommodation", which is defined by Section 2 (y) as follows:
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:13:07 ANI +05'30' 15 Item No. 89 O.A. No. 4278/2025 Court No. IV "(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;.."
26. Reasonable accommodation thus, is "appropriate modification and adjustments" that should be taken by the employer, in the present case, without that duty being imposed with "disproportionate or undue burden".
TANGEDCO- the employer expresses its willingness to accommodate the appellant. Yet the position it offers, is highly inadequate: that it is belated, is beside the point. In the considered view of this court, the post offered, i.e., Junior Assistant, is inconsistent with the appellant's qualification which cannot be offered to him; the offer is a mere palliative gesture, which he justifiably rejected.
27. TANGEDCO, during the hearing was unable to show how it employing the appellant in one of the many departments or units [as AE (Material Management) or AE (CAUP) in the office of the Executive Engineer or even as AE (General) in the office of the SE or as AE (General)] is not possible. The hierarchy of posts further indicates that the primary inspection responsibilities of technical nature are upon Junior Engineers, who oversee the work of Technical Assistants, and that of Linemen. It is evident that the AE works at a position of overseeing supervisory work of Junior Engineers. This could involve, at the field stage, satisfaction after visual inspection. Sufficient safeguards (whenever the appellant's services in that regard are absolutely essential, and he is deployed on some occasions) can be taken, to ensure that he is accompanied by those without any colour vision deficiencies or impairments. TANGEDCO's units and organizational structure, in this court's opinion, have sufficient possibility for accommodating the appellant in a unit or department which may not require utilization of skills that involve intense engagement with colour. As stated earlier, these are AE (General) in SE office, AE (CAUP) in EE office; AE (Material Management). The TANGEDCO, is under an obligation to ensure that the appellant is therefore, suitably accommodated in any such general department or establishment.
28. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned judgment cannot stand; it is set aside. TANGEDCO, the respondent corporation, is directed to appoint and continue the appellant in its service, as AE (Electrical) at the appropriate stage of the grade of pay, from the date he was terminated from service, or his appointment was cancelled, and accommodate him in a suitable department, where he can be given appropriate responsibilities. The appellant shall also be entitled to 50% of full arrears of salary, and all allowances, and his service shall be reckoned from the original date of appointment, (which was later cancelled), with full continuity. The appeal is allowed in these terms, without order on costs."
5.11.2 In Civil Appeal No. 7230 of 2024 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5239 of 2024) - Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures Films India Private Limited & Ors., decided on 08.07.2024, it was observed as under:
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:13:07 ANI +05'30' 16 Item No. 89 O.A. No. 4278/2025 Court No. IV "Since the issue involves the fundamental rights of persons with disabilities, we take this opportunity to provide a framework of the portrayal of persons with disabilities in visual media that aligns with the anti-discrimination and dignity- affirming objectives of the Constitution as well as the RPwD Act. We are cognisant that Article 19(2) of the Constitution is exhaustive of the limitations that can be applied on the freedom guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).
The framework we wish to lay down is in line with our findings in Vikash Kumar (supra) where we emphasised that the fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution apply with equal rigour to persons with disabilities.
The language of our discourse ought to be inclusive rather than alienating. We noted in Vikash Kumar (supra), that insensitive language was contrary to the dignity of persons with disabilities.128 As long as the overall message of the film justifies the depiction of disparaging language being used against persons with disabilities, it cannot be subjected to restrictions beyond those placed in Article 19(2). However, language that disparages persons with disabilities, marginalises them further and supplements the disabling barriers in their social participation, without the redeeming quality of the overall message of such portrayal must be approached with caution. Such representation is problematic not because it offends subjective feelings but rather, because it impairs the objective societal treatment of the affected groups by society. We believe that representation of persons with disabilities must regard the objective social context of their representation and not marginalise persons with disability:
(i) Words cultivate institutional discrimination. Terms such as "cripple"
and "spastic" have come to acquire devalued meanings in societal perceptions about persons with disabilities. They contribute to the negative self-image and perpetuate discriminatory attitudes and practices in society;
(ii)Language that individualises the impairment and overlooks the disabling social barriers (e.g. terms such as "afflicted", "suffering", and "victim") should be avoided or adequately flagged as contrary to the social model;
(iii)Creators must check for accurate representation of a medical condition as much as possible. The misleading portrayal of what a condition such as night blindness entails may perpetuate misinformation about the condition, and entrench stereotypes about persons with such impairments, aggravating the disability;
(iv)Persons with disabilities are under-represented. Average people are unaware of the barriers persons with disabilities face. Visual media must reflect their lived experiences. Their portrayal must capture the multitudes of their lived realities, and should not be a uni-dimensional, ableist characterisation;
(v) Visual media should strive to depict the diverse realities of persons with disabilities, showcasing not only their challenges but also their successes, talents, and contributions to society. This balanced representation can help dispel stereotypes and promote a more inclusive understanding of disability. Such portrayals should reflect the multifaceted lives of persons with disabilities, emphasizing their roles as active community members who contribute meaningfully across various ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:13:07 ANI +05'30' 17 Item No. 89 O.A. No. 4278/2025 Court No. IV spheres of life. By highlighting their achievements and everyday experiences, media can shift the narrative from one of limitation to one of potential and agency;
(vi)They should neither be lampooned based on myths (such as, 'blind people bump into objects in their path') nor presented as 'super cripples' on the other extreme. This stereotype implies that persons with disabilities have extraordinary heroic abilities that merit their dignified treatment. For instance, the notion that visually impaired persons have enhanced spatial senses may not apply to everyone uniformly. It also implies that those who do not have such enhanced superpowers to compensate for the visual impairment are somehow less than ideal;
(vii) Decision-making bodies must bear in mind the values of participation. The 'nothing about us, without us' principle is based on the promotion of participation of persons with disabilities and equalisation of opportunities. It must be put to practice in constituting statutory committees and inviting expert opinions for assessing the overall message of films and their impact on dignity of individuals under the Cinematograph Act and Rules
(viii) The CPRD also requires consultation with and involvement of persons with disabilities in the implementation of measures to encourage portrayal that is consistent with it.Collaboration with disability advocacy groups can provide invaluable insights and guidance on respectful and accurate portrayals, ensuring that content aligns with the lived experiences of persons with disabilities; and
(ix)Training and sensitization programs should be implemented for individuals involved in creating visual media content, including writers, directors, producers, and actors. These programs should emphasize the impact of their portrayals on public perceptions and the lived experiences of persons with disabilities. Topics should include the principles of the social model of disability, the importance of respectful language, and the need for accurate and empathetic representation. Regular workshops and collaboration with disability advocacy groupscan foster a deeper understanding and commitment to responsible portrayal."
5.11.3 In Civil Appeal No. 14333 of 2024 [arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27632 of 2024] - Anmol v. Union of India & Ors., decided on 21.02.2025, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"34. We may only add that the need to revise the guidelines as emphasized by the NMC was directed in the 15.10.2024 judgment of Omkar Ramchandra Gond (supra) and reiterated in the 25.10.2024 judgment of Om Rathod (supra). Further in para 26 of Om Rathod (supra) extracted hereinabove the "both hands intact..." requirement has been expressly rejected. We have also held hereinabove that such an insistence in a statutory regulation is absolutely antithetical to the objectives of Article 41 and the principles set out in the United Nations Convention and the rights guaranteed under the RPwD Act.
35. A prescription such as "both hands intact..." reeks of ableism and has no place in a statutory regulation. In fact, it has the effect of denuding the rights guaranteed under the Constitution and the RPwD Act and makes a mockery of the principle of reasonable accommodation.
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:13:07 ANI +05'30' 18 Item No. 89 O.A. No. 4278/2025 Court No. IV
36. In our considered view, the correct approach is the one that Dr. Satendra Singh has adopted viz.- to not bar a candidate at the threshold but grant the candidate the choice after completing the MBBS Course, to decide whether he whishes to specialize in a non- surgical or medical branch or continue as a General Duty Medical Officer. As rightly set out by Dr. Satendra Singh, it will be unfair to presume incompetence at the threshold without first providing an opportunity to the candidate and ensuring the availability of accommodations and assistive products.
37. Dr. Satendra Singh also adopted an interactive process which he highlights in the report in the following terms:
"Accommodation decisions are not made based on diagnosis, per se. I used an interactive process to review his functional limitation (restrictions that prevent him from fully performing an activity) and barriers which may be educational, physical or attitudinal in nature. Disability: Benchmark Multiple Disability with two half grown fingers in both hands and toes (mobility-related physical disability, phocomelia) and speech impairment.
Potential Functional Limitations: Some areas involving full dexterity Potential Barriers to learning: Few practical procedures which might require full dexterity What is being assessed: Cognitive, psychomotor and affective skills in line with NMC's five roles of an Indian Medical Graduate in CBME Appropriate and reasonable accommodation: Physical intermediary to assist in a few procedures as part of medical team and appropriate assistive technology in final year and internship."
38. Dealing with Functional Assessment, the appellant was put through certain procedures to test his dexterity and ability to perform psychomotor skills in simulated environment. The report concludes as follows:
"The following procedure skills was tested to see his dexterity and ability to perform psychomotor skills in simulated environment: holding glass slides; wearing gloves; holding scissors; putting suture into needles; locking scissors, making sutures; making single incisions with blade; making curvilinear incisions; holding syringe, filling it, withdrawing water in syringe; cutting sutures; doing lifesaving cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) - chest compressions and artificial respiration; urinary catheterization.
The experience showed that despite loss of two fingers in either hands his thumb in both was intact showing grasp and ability to use his both hands (he is left-handed). With the advent of Competency Based Medical Education (CBME), it may also be noted that attainment of the highest level of competency needs to be obtained through steps spread over several subjects or phases and not necessarily in the subject or the phase in which the competency has been identified. (page 3969 of NMC CBME 2024 released on 12.09.2024)."
(Emphasis supplied)
39. Based on these tests, certain clinical accommodations for each of the phases in the MBBS Course have been suggested which can easily be adopted by the authorities. For example, for phase one MBBS Course, it is suggested that compensatory time in theory and practical examination and provision of facility of scribes have been suggested to improve ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:13:07 ANI +05'30' 19 Item No. 89 O.A. No. 4278/2025 Court No. IV efficiency. Similarly, for phase three, part-I, certain assistive technology measures have been suggested like speech to text technology, antivibration gloves and so on.
40. Thereafter, Dr. Satendra Singh posed to himself the following four questions:
"a) Would the proposed accommodation result in a failure to meet the NMC CBME's inherent requirements?
b) Would the accommodation legitimately jeopardize patient safety?
c) Would the proposed accommodation result in the improper waiver of a core requirement of the CBME?
d) Would the proposed accommodation pose an undue hardship on the medical college (budgets wise)?"
The answer to all these was in the negative, as has been duly recorded in the report.
41. The report has an interesting reference about how in an age when robotic surgeries are relied upon, the NMC norms still insist on the "both hands intact with intact sensations" norm. Dr. Satendra Singh quotes the father of neurosurgery Harvey Cushing, who as early as in November 1911, emphasized that motor skills are often "the least part of the work".
43. We find that the report of Dr. Satendra Singh satisfies the parameters of the law laid down by this Court in Omkar Ramchandra Gond (supra) and Om Rathod (supra). It makes a detailed individual analysis of the case and makes a functional assessment; it states elaborate reasons and it suggests measures for providing clinical accommodation and assistive technology. Above all, the conclusion of Dr. Satendra Singh that incompetence to pursue the MBBS Course cannot be presumed at the threshold stage, on the facts of the present case, appeals to us for the reasons set out hereinabove."
5.11.4 In Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2 of 2024 - In Re:
Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"67. The overall analysis would demonstrate that a rights-based approach necessitates that PwDs must not face any discrimination in their pursuit of judicial service opportunities, and instead, there must be affirmative action on behalf of the State to provide an inclusive framework. Now, it is high time that we view the right against disability- based discrimination, as recognized in the RPwD Act 2016, of the same stature as a fundamental right, thereby ensuring that no candidate is denied consideration solely on account of their disability. Further, as extensively discussed, the principle of reasonable accommodation, as enshrined in international conventions, established jurisprudence, and the RPwD Act, 2016, mandate that accommodations be provided to PwDs as a prerequisite to assessing their eligibility. In the light of the above, any indirect discrimination that results in the exclusion of PwDs, whether through rigid cut-offs or procedural barriers, must be interfered with in order to uphold substantive equality. The commitment to ensuring equal opportunity necessitates a structured and inclusive approach, where merit ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:13:07 ANI +05'30' 20 Item No. 89 O.A. No. 4278/2025 Court No. IV is evaluated with due regard to the reasonable accommodations required, thereby fostering judicial appointments that truly reflects the principles of fairness and justice.
67.1. Thus, after considering the pleadings, submissions of the learned counsel appearing for all the parties, as well as the legal positions and case laws, we conclude as follows:
(i) Visually impaired candidates cannot be said to be 'not suitable' for judicial service and they are eligible to participate in selection for posts in judicial service.
(ii) The amendment made in Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 falls foul of the Constitution, and is hence, struck down to the extent that it does not include visually impaired persons who are educationally qualified for the post to apply therefor.
(iii) The proviso to Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 relating to additional requirements, violates the equality doctrine and the principle of reasonable accommodation, and is hereby struck down in its application to differently abled persons who have the requisite educational qualifications for applying to the posts under judicial service.
(iv) Relaxation can be done in assessing suitability of candidates when enough PwD are not available after selection in their respective category, to the extent as stated in the relevant paragraphs above, and in the light of existing Rules and Official Circulars and executive orders in this regard, as in the present case.
(v) A separate cut-off is to be maintained and selection made accordingly for visually-impaired candidates as has been indicated in the relevant paragraphs in line with the judgment in Indra Sawhney.
(vi) For the purpose of rights and entitlements of persons with disabilities, particularly in employment, and more specifically in respect of the issues covered in this judgment, there can be no distinction between Persons with Disabilities (PwD) and Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD)."
5.11.5 In Civil Appeal No. 10611 of 2024 - Omkar Ramchandra Gond v.
Union of India & Ors., decided on 15.10.2024, the Apex Court held as under:
"48. While interpreting the Regulations and Guidelines, as provided in Appendix H-1 to the notification dated 13.05.2019, as they stood for the academic year 2024-25, we are constrained, keeping in mind the salutary object of the RPwD Act and Article 41 of the Directive Principles of State Policy, to direct that mere existence of benchmark disability of 40% or above (or such other prescribed percentages depending on the disability) will not disqualify a candidate from being eligible for the course applied for. The Disability Assessment Boards assessing the candidates should positively record whether the disability of the candidate will or will not come in the way of the candidate pursuing the course in question. The Disability Assessment Boards should state reasons in the event of the ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:13:07 ANI +05'30' 21 Item No. 89 O.A. No. 4278/2025 Court No. IV Disability Assessment Board concluding that candidate is not eligible for pursuing the course.
49. The Disability Assessment Boards will, pending formulation of appropriate Regulations by the NMC, pursuant to the communication of 25.01.2024 by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, keep in mind the salutary points mentioned in the said communication while forming their opinion.
50. Pending creation of the Appellate body, we further direct that such decisions of the Disability Assessment Boards which give a negative opinion for the candidate will be amenable to challenge in judicial review proceedings. The Court seized of the matter in the judicial review proceedings shall refer the case of the candidate to any premier medical institute having the facility for an independent opinion and relief to the candidate will be granted or denied based on the opinion of the said medical institution to which the High Court had referred the matter.
51. Before we part, we will do well to recollect that acclaimed Bharatanatyam dancer Sudha Chandran, Arunima Sinha who conquered Mount Everest, prominent sports personality, H. Boniface Prabhu, entrepreneur Srikanth Bolla and Dr. Satendra Singh, the founder of 'Infinite Ability', are some of the shining daughters and sons from a long and illustrious list of individuals in India who scaled extraordinary heights braving all adversities.
52. The world would have been so much the poorer if Homer, Milton, Mozart, Beethoven, Byron and many more would not have been allowed to realize their full potential. Distinguished Indian Medical Practitioner Dr. Farokh Erach Udwadia in his classic work "The Forgotten Art of Healing and Others Essays' under the Chapter 'Art and Medicine' rightly extolls their extraordinary talent, and of the many more similarly circumstanced.
Conclusion and Directions:
For the reasons set out hereinabove, We hold that quantified disability per se will not dis- entitle a candidate with benchmark disability from being considered for admission to educational institutions. The candidate will be eligible, if the Disability Assessment Board opines that notwithstanding the quantified disability the candidate can pursue the course in question. The NMC regulations in the notification of 13.05.2019 read with the Appendix H-1 should, pending the re-formulation by NMC, be read in the light of the holdings in this judgment.
(ii) The Disability Assessment Boards assessing the candidates should positively record whether the disability of the candidate will or will not come in the way of the candidate pursuing the course in question. The Disability Assessment Boards should state reasons in the event of the Disability Assessment Boards concluding that the candidate is not eligible for pursuing the course.
(iii) The Disability Assessment Boards will, pending formulation of appropriate regulations by the NMC, pursuant to the communication of 25.01.2024 by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, keep in mind the salutary points mentioned in the said communication while forming their opinion.
(iv) Pending creation of the appellate body, we further direct that such decisions of the Disability Assessment Boards which give a negative ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:13:07 ANI +05'30' 22 Item No. 89 O.A. No. 4278/2025 Court No. IV opinion for the candidate will be amenable to challenge in judicial review proceedings. The Court seized of the matter in the judicial review proceedings shall refer the case of the candidate to any premier medical institute having the facility, for an independent opinion and relief to the candidate will be granted or denied based on the opinion of the said medical institution to which the High Court had referred the matter.
(v) We have already, pursuant to our order dated 18.09.2024, in view of the favorable report dated 13.09.2024 of the Maulana Azad Medical College, granted admission to the appellant. We confirm the admission and direct the concerned authorities to treat the admission as a valid admission in the eye of law.
54. The appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 29.08.2024 is set aside. In view of our directions, Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 24821 of 2024 pending in the High Court of judicature at Bombay will stand disposed of in terms of the holding in the present judgment. No order as to costs."
5.11.6 In W.P. (C) No. 1314/2021 - Anmol Kumar Mishra (Minor) v.
Union of India, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi) held as under:
"14. The petitioner placed the entire matter before the IITs by way of correspondence prior to filling up his form or taking the JEE. He was advised that he was eligible under the PwD category, subject to a valid PwD certificate and other eligibility criteria. The validity of his certificate is not in issue. What is now being raised is that a temporary disability is a disqualification to avail of the reservation. The fact that the petitioner's disability was temporary and his certificate was valid only for a period of one year was disclosed by him in his correspondence. The position taken by the respondents in their response to his emails is, in my view, consistent with the Act and the Guidelines. To the contrary, the contention in the impugned communication dated 09.11.2021 is that he is not eligible for the very reason that he had disclosed to the respondents.
15. This is an unduly restrictive interpretation. The Act is a beneficial legislation. While dealing with an earlier legislation on the same subject, the Supreme Court observed that the said Act was a social legislation for the benefit of PwDs and must be interpreted in order to fulfill its objectives3. The principle that beneficial legislations must be construed liberally with the objective of furthering their purpose is well settled4, and the same understanding must inform the interpretation of the Act. I am of the view that the impugned communication tends to adopt a restrictive interpretation which is not consistent with the object of the legislation. Of course, the benefits of the Act should be conferred upon those the legislature intended to be benefitted, but the Act does not make the distinction which the respondents have read into the legislative scheme."
5.12 The respondents' denial of the applicant's request for disability status was mechanical, arbitrary, and unreasonable. The respondent ought to have considered functional disability rather than relying solely on the nature of physical impairment. In any event, the applicant had already performed the ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:13:07 ANI +05'30' 23 Item No. 89 O.A. No. 4278/2025 Court No. IV same job on a contractual basis for a substantial period, and could have been reasonably accommodated, which demonstrates his fitness for the post to which he was appointed and was already discharging duties.
5.13. The applicant herein could have been considered for appointment in the appropriate category in light of the Gazette Notification dated 04.01.2021 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- 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 ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:13:07 ANI +05'30' 24 Item No. 89 O.A. No. 4278/2025 Court No. IV
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."
5.14 It is also submitted that reservation operates at the level of the establishment as a whole and is not to be confined rigidly to individual cadres, irrespective of the nature of duties attached to the post.
5.15. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the withdrawal of the applicant's appointment as Craft Instructor-Welder is arbitrary and unjustified, particularly when the applicant had successfully cleared the selection process, was duly recommended for appointment, and was permitted to join the post. The impugned action thus results in a gross violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:13:07 ANI +05'30' 25 Item No. 89 O.A. No. 4278/2025 Court No. IV and is also contrary to the mandate of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
6. CONCLUSION :
6.1. 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 of the Medical Superintendent, along with all relevant original documents, for a re-assessment of his disability for the post in question.
(ii) 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.
(iii) The entire exercise shall be completed within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Thereafter, if found eligible, the offer of appointment shall be issued to the applicant within 30 days.
6.2. Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/as/
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:13:07
ANI +05'30'