Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Molshree Aggarwal vs Union Public Service Commission (Upsc) on 25 September, 2025
1
Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.3553/2024
M.A. No.3298/2024
M.A. No. 3299/2024
Order reserved on 25.08.2025
Order pronounced on 25.09.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
1. MOLSHREEAGGARWAL W-23, GREATER
KAILASH-1, NEW DELHI - 110048
2. SONALIKA AGGARWAL W-23, GREATER
KAILASH-1, NEW DELHI - 110048.
......Applicants
(By Advocates: Mr. Rahul Sunil Bajaj with Mr.
Amritesh Mishra, Ms. Sarah and Mr. Amar Jain a)
Versus
1. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
THROUGH ITS CHAIRPERSON 5 DHOLPUR
HOUSE, SHAHJAHAN ROAD, DELHI -110069.
2. DEPARTMENT OF EMPOWERMENT OF
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE
&EMPOWERMENT
5TH FLOOR, ANTYODAYA BHAWAN, CGO
COMPLEX LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI- 110003.
3. DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & TRAINING
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF
PERSONNEL, PG AND PENSIONS GOVERNMENT
OF INDIA NORTHBLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.
2
Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024
4. OFFICE OFCHIEF COMMISSIONER FOR
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (CCPD) THROUGH
ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER
5TH FLOOR, NISD BUILDING, PLOT NO.G-2,
SECTOR-IO, NEW DELHI -110075
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr. R V Sinha, Mr. Naresh
Kaushik, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. S M
Zulfiqar, Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, Mr. Anand
Singh, Mr. Shantanu Shukla, Mr. Archit Gautam)
3
Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):
In the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants seek the following reliefs:-
(i.) Direct Respondent Nos. 1 & 3 to reserve 0.5% posts forpersons with benchmark disabilities falling under category (d) as stipulated by Section 34(1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 in the Civil Services Examinations;
(ii.) Direct Respondent No. 2 to identify posts suitable for persons with benchmark disabilities falling under category (d) as stipulated by Section 34(1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 in the Civil Services;
(iii.) Direct Respondent Nos. 1 & 3 to provisionally reserve 0.5% vacancies for persons with disabilities falling under category (d) as stipulated by Section 34(1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 in the 2024 Civil Services Examinations Cycle pending the outcome of the instant Original Application; (iv.) Direct Respondent Nos. 1-3 to collectively work out the reasonable accommodations needed by persons with disabilities falling under category (d) as stipulated under Section 34(1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 in the Civil Services Examinations and to give effect to the same; and (v.) Pass such other and further orders / directions as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case."
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated by learned counsel for the applicants are as under:- 4
Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 2.1 The present Original Application has been instituted by Ms. Molshree Aggarwal and Ms. Sonalika Aggarwal, both certified with benchmark disability, namely Specific Learning Disability (dyslexia), to the extent of more than forty per cent, duly recognised under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Learned counsel pointed out that despite this condition, the applicants have pursued their academics with remarkable merit. The applicant No.1 graduated in first division from Lady Shri Ram College and is presently pursuing her Master's in Political Science; Applicant No.2 has recently graduated from St. Stephen's College, University of Delhi, with distinction. Applicant No.1 has also gained significant professional experience having worked with Bloomberg Data Services for nearly six years, her intellectual abilities further reflected in an IQ score of 117. 2.2 Learned counsel submitted that both applicants are aspirants for the Civil Services Examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission. Applicant No.1 has appeared in the examination on more than one occasion, most recently in 2024, but 5 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 has been denied the benefit of reservation owing to the systemic exclusion of her entire category of disability from the ambit of the Civil Services.
2.3 Learned counsel emphasised that Section 34(1) of the RPwD Act, 2016 mandates reservation of not less than four per cent of vacancies in every Government establishment for persons with benchmark disabilities, with one per cent each earmarked for categories (a), (b), and (c), and one per cent jointly for categories (d) and
(e). Category (d) specifically includes Specific Learning Disability. Thus, by statutory command, half a per cent of the vacancies in the Civil Services Examination must be reserved for persons such as the applicants. It is further submitted that the second proviso to Section 34 permits exemption only upon consultation with the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, and no such exemption has been sought or granted in the present matter.
2.4 Learned counsel further submitted that contrary to this statutory mandate, Respondent No.2, the Department of Empowerment of Persons with 6 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 Disabilities, by its notification dated 04.01.2021, failed to identify even a single post in the Civil Services as suitable for persons with learning disabilities, thereby abdicating its statutory duty under Section 33 of the Act. This illegality was then carried forward by Respondent No.3, the Department of Personnel and Training, in the Civil Services Examination Rules, 2024, where Rule 25, read with Appendix IV, specifically excluded Category (d). Consequently, the UPSC Notification dated 14.02.2024 earmarked 40 posts for PwBD candidates across categories (a), (b), (c), and (e), but not a single one for Category (d). 2.5 Learned counsel submitted that applicant No.1, compelled to compete without the benefit of reservation, appeared in the Preliminary Examination, but her name did not figure in the list of successful candidates published on 01.07.2024. She thereafter approached the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities on 05.07.2024, but her complaint was rejected without reasons, leaving her with no alternative but to invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
7
Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 2.6 Learned counsel argued that the exclusion of Category (d) is wholly unsustainable in law. Firstly, it is in direct contravention of Section 34(1), which is a Parliamentary enactment. Delegated legislation in the form of the CSE Rules or the notification of identified posts cannot override the parent statute, as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 641. Secondly, the exclusion is arbitrary, inasmuch as there is no intelligible differentia between Category (d) and the other benchmark disabilities. Such manifest arbitrariness is a ground for invalidation, as held in Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1. Thirdly, learned counsel contended that the exclusion violates fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution. Equal protection of law is denied; the applicants' right to pursue their chosen profession is curtailed; and their dignity is impaired. Fourthly, the doctrine of reasonable accommodation, embodied in Section 2(y) and Section 3(5) of the Act, has been completely ignored. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 8 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 761, has recognised that denial of reasonable accommodation amounts to discrimination. It is urged that persons with dyslexia, with minimal support such as assistive technology or a scribe, are fully capable of discharging the responsibilities of a civil servant, and to deny them even the chance to compete is itself discriminatory.
2.7 Learned counsel further pointed out that the approach of the respondents is internally contradictory. While Rule 5(2)(f) of the 2024 Rules grants ten years' age relaxation to Category (d) candidates, thereby recognising their eligibility, not a single seat is reserved for them. This contradiction demonstrates non-application of mind. Learned counsel highlighted that in previous years some posts in the Armed Forces Headquarters were identified for Category (d), but in 2024 even those have been withdrawn, thereby worsening the discrimination. 2.8 Learned counsel further submitted that the prejudice is not merely theoretical. The applicants' academic and professional achievements establish 9 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 their ability. The Reserve Bank of India, in its Grade B Officer recruitment, has identified posts for Category
(d) candidates, thereby proving the feasibility of their inclusion. The continued exclusion by UPSC and DoP&T, counsel argues, is rooted in bias rather than reason.
2.9 For the above reasons, learned counsel prayed that this Tribunal may be pleased to direct Respondents 1 and 3 to reserve 0.5 .% of vacancies in the Civil Services Examination for Category (d) candidates, as mandated under Section 34(1); to direct Respondent No.2 to identify posts suitable for such disabilities under Section 33; to provisionally reserve such posts in the ongoing CSE 2024 cycle; and to require the respondents to evolve protocols for reasonable accommodation so that such candidates may have a level playing field.
2.10 Learned counsel for the applicants further referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal & Anr. v. Union of India, (2023) 2 SCC 209, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme 10 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 Court held that reasonable accommodation is not charity but a matter of enforceable constitutional right. In paragraph 17 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasised that rights impose correlative duties on the State. In paragraph 22, the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained that disability is a social construct, and that substantive equality under Article 14 requires the State to positively adjust structures and conditions. In paragraph 24, the Court went further to hold that the denial of reasonable accommodation amounts to discrimination per se. Learned counsel further submitted that this is not an isolated pronouncement. As far back as Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind, (2013) 10 SCC 772, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed strict implementation of reservation for persons with disabilities, observing that reservation is a matter of statutory right and not largesse. Similarly, learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of this Tribunal in Amit Yadav v. Comptroller & Auditor General of India & Ors., OA No. 339/2022, decided on 23.01.2023, wherein it is held that a candidate 11 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 suffering from mental illness could not be denied the benefit of reservation. In paragraph 10 of that decision, this Tribunal observed that the RPwD Act itself contemplates such categories, and in paragraph 12 directed that candidature must be meaningfully considered in accordance with the statute.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have filed detailed counter replies. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 (Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment) contended that it is not a necessary party to the proceedings, as the responsibility for identification of services/posts and framing of examination rules vests exclusively with DoPT.
3.1 Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 (DoPT) justifies the exclusion of clause (d) disabilities from CSE-2024. It is submitted that pursuant to recommendations of an Expert Committee constituted by DoPT, and after deliberations with Cadre Controlling Authorities as well as with concurrence of DEPwD, a uniform set of Functional Classification and Physical 12 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 Requirement (FC&PR) criteria was prescribed for Civil Services Examination 2024. The said criteria, notified under Appendix-IV of the Rules, do not provide for clause (d) disabilities. It is further pointed out that this exclusion has been consciously continued for CSE- 2025, 2026 and 2027, with the involvement of experts and approval of the Competent Authority. Reliance is placed on DoPT OM dated 17.11.2023 and subsequent communications to demonstrate that the decision was taken in due consultation with stakeholders, keeping in view the functional requirements of the services. Learned counsel submitted that the scope of judicial review in such matters is limited to examining the decision-making process, and that it is settled law that Courts cannot substitute their own views in policy matters relating to identification of posts for reservation.
3.2 Pursuant to the interim directions of this Tribunal, the result of the applicants was produced in a sealed cover and opened in Court in the presence of learned counsel for both parties. It was revealed that the name of the applicant figures in the merit list at Serial No. 2. 13 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 However, only one post was available. The Tribunal, while taking note of this position, directed that although no immediate relief can be granted to the applicant, her candidature shall be considered for appointment in the event the candidate above her in the merit list does not join or subsequently resigns, within the validity period of the panel as per DoPT guidelines.
3.3 Thus, the matter presently stands at the stage where the legality of exclusion of category (d) disabilities from the Civil Services Examination Rules 2024 onwards requires adjudication in light of the statutory mandate under Section 34 of the RPwD Act, 2016, the stand taken by DoPT on functional unsuitability, and the binding nature of constitutional and statutory obligations to provide reservation to persons with benchmark disabilities. 3.4 Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the present OA is misconceived. Recruitment to public services is governed by statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. The UPSC, in the 14 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 instant case, conducted the recruitment strictly in accordance with the advertisement and applicable rules. The applicant was found ineligible under those rules, and this Tribunal cannot, by a process of interpretation, rewrite the eligibility conditions or extend benefits not contemplated therein. 3.5 Learned counsel submitted that the position of law is settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Bedanga Talukdar v.
Saifudullah Khan, (2011) 12 SCC 85, it was laid down that recruitment must be conducted strictly in accordance with the advertisement. Any deviation would render the process unfair and liable to be struck down. Similarly, in State of Tamil Nadu v. G. Hemalatha, (2020) 19 SCC 430, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that essential eligibility conditions such as minimum qualifying marks cannot be relaxed where the rules do not provide for such relaxation. In S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala, (2009) 2 SCC 479, it was held that equity or sympathy cannot override statutory requirements.
15
Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 3.6 Further, in Mallikarjuna Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1990) 2 SCC 707, the Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned that neither the Courts nor Tribunals can direct the framing or amendment of rules, which is a matter within the exclusive domain of the rule-making authority. In Rachna v. Union of India, (2021) 5 SCC 638, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that relaxations in attempts or age limits cannot be judicially created when not contemplated in the rules. In Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, (2013) 4 SCC 540, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that norms of selection cannot be changed midstream. In Maya Mathew v. State of Kerala, (2010) 3 SCC 498, the Hon'ble Supreme clarified that rules cannot be retrospectively applied unless expressly so provided.
3.7 In light of the above, it is submitted that while the respondents are fully committed to implementing reservation for persons with disabilities in accordance with Sections 33 and 34 of the RPwD Act, such implementation cannot extend to rewriting essential eligibility conditions. It is submitted that reasonable 16 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 accommodation, means facilitation within the framework of the law, but it does not mean that fundamental requirements of the post can be waived. 3.8 The reliance placed by the applicant on Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal (supra) and Amit Yadav (supra) is distinguishable. Dhariwal (supra) concerned the protection of an employee already in service and dealt with the duty of accommodation in that context. Amit Yadav (supra) was a case where the category of disability was expressly contemplated. Neither of these cases involved the alteration of eligibility conditions in an open competitive recruitment. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the selection has been carried out strictly in accordance with the notified rules, and this Tribunal cannot enlarge the scope of reservation or create new relaxations which the legislature itself has not provided.
3.9. Continuing the arguments put forth on 21.08.2025, Mr. R V Sinha, learned counsel submitted that the applicants have not specifically challenged the 17 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 CSE Rules, 2024, nor the DoP&T OM dated 17.11.2023 and DEPwD OM dated 20.12.2024. In the absence of such a challenge, the reliefs claimed cannot be granted. The OM dated 17.11.2023 is reproduced as under:-
"Sub: Approved uniform set of Functional Classification and ·Physical Requirements (FC&PR) criteria for the participating Services of the Civil Services Examination (CSE).
The undersigned is directed to refer to the subject cited above and to say that as per the existing practice, the Functional Classification and Physical Requirements (FC&PR) criteria for PwBD category candidates of the Civil Services Examination (CSE) are determined by the Cadre Controlling Authority (CCA) of the respective participating Service. Before notifying the CSE Rules for a particular CSE, this Department request CCAs of the participating Services to provide details of FC&PR criteria in respect of that Service, which are then notified under Appendix-IV of the CSE Rules. It has been observed that the CCAs have recommended/prescribed different standards of FC&PR for their respective Service(s) which are, in several instances, at variance with each other. This has led to a situation where some candidates, despite being recommended by UPSC and being declared as valid PwBD candidates by the Medical Board, could not be allocated to any service due to non-fulfilment of FC&PR criteria.
1.1 Accordingly, with a view to maintain uniformity in the FC&PR criteria for all the Non-Technical participating Services of CSE as well as Indian Railways Management Service· (IRMS), a decision was taken with the approval of the Competent Authority and with the concurrence of the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPwD), that the Department of Personnel & Training. being the Nodal Department for CSE, shall be the 'appropriate Government' in the context of the participating Services of CSE, as per the provisions of Section 33 & 34 of the RPwD Act, 18 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 2016; and shall, accordingly, be competent to prescribe the FC&PR criteria for all the Non-Technical participating Services of CSE as well as IRMS, in consultation with and involvement of the CCAs and the DEPwD. Copies of this Department's OM of even number dated 16.08.2023 and DEPwD OM No. 05- 43/2023-DD-1I1 dated 18.08.2023 are enclosed for reference.
1.2 In pursuance of the above decision, an Expert Committee was constituted by this Department, vide OM of even number dated 11.09.2023 (copy enclosed), for rationalisation of the FC&PR criteria for the participating Services of CSE.
2. After receipt of the initial set of recommendations of the Expert Committee regarding uniform set of FC&PR criteria, a meeting was held on 25.10.2023 with the CCAs of the participating Services of CSE to obtain their views on the uniform FC&PR criteria for all the Non-Technical participating Services as well as IRMS from CSE-2024 onwards. During the said meeting, it was deliberated that in case, any CCA finds any category(ies) of disabilities not suitable for its respective Service keeping in view the functional requirement of that Service, they will solicit exemption from the provisions of Section 34 of the RPwD Act, 2016 from the DEPwD, at the earliest. It was decided that till a notification of exemption is not issued, the proposed uniform FC&PR, as recommended by the Expert Committee, will be considered for the participating services. 2.1 The views of the CCAs were noted and placed before the Expert Committee. After detailed deliberations, the Expert Committee recommended a uniform set of FC&PR criteria for all the non- Technical participating Services and IRMS for CSE- 2024.
2.2 The DEPwD has also conveyed its concurrence on the uniform set of FC&PR criteria as recommended by the Expert Committee.
3. On the basis of the recommendations of the Expert Committee and views expressed by the CCAs of the participating Services of CSE, the following decisions have been taken with the approval of the Competent Authority:
19
Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 (A) Approved uniform set of FC&PR criteria for all for all the non-Technical participating Services and IRMS For CSE-2024, the following uniform set of FC&PR criteria for all the non-Technical participating Services and IRMS, as recommended by the Expert Committee, has been approved:
Category(ies) for which Functional Physical Requirements identified Classification (To be (To be Functional suitable Category of Requirements Benchmark Disabilities)
(i) Locomotor Disability OA, OL, BA, OAL, BLA, S,SE,H, RW, C including Cerebral BLOA, BL, BAOL, SD, Palsy, Leprosy Cured, SI, CP, LC, Dw, AAV, Dwarfism, Acid Attack MDy Victims and Muscular Dystropy;
(ii) Blindness and Low LV, B MF, PP J S, ST, W, L,
Vision C, RW (including in
braille/ software), H,
KC, BN
(iii) Deaf and Hard of D, HH MF, PP, S, ST, W, L, C,
Hearing RW, KC, BN
(iv) Multiple disability Any combination of S, RW (including in from amongst only FCs from different braille/software), C above three categories as allowed categories under (i) to (iii), except the combination of blind & deaf (B + D) List of Abbreviations used:
Suitable categories of Functional Requirements Benchmark Disabilities S - Sitting OA - One Arm ST - Standing 20 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 OL - One Leg W - Walking BA - Both Arms SE - Seeing OAL - One Arm and One Leg H - Hearing BLA - Both legs and Both Arms RW - Reading and Writing BLOA - Both Legs and One C - Communication Arm MF - Manipulation with fingers BL - Both Legs PP - Pulling and Pushing BAOL - Both Arms and One L - Lifting Leg KC - Kneeling and Crouching SD - Spinal Deformity BN - Bending SI - Spinal Injury JU - Jumping CP - Cerebral Palsy CL - Climbing LC - Leprosy Cured DW - Dwarfism AV - Acid Attack Victims MDy - Muscular Dystrophy LV - Low Vision B - Blind D - Deaf HH - Hard of Hearing MD - Multiple Disabilities (B) For CSE-2025, the FC&PR· criteria, including the inclusion/exclusion of disabilities mentioned under clause (d) of the Section 34(1) of the RPwD Act, 2016 [i.e., autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness] may be reviewed with involvement of experts on the subject.
4. It has further been decided that, if any CCA determines that any category(ies) of disabilities is not suitable for its respective Service keeping in view the functional requirement of that Service, it would solicit exemption from the provisions of Section 34 of the RPwD Act, 2016 from the DEPwD. Till such a notification of exemption is not issued, the above approved uniform set of FC&PR crlterla will be considered for the non-Technical participating Services of CSE as well as IRMS for CSE-2024.
5. This is for information of all the CCAs of the Non- Technical participating Services of CSE as well as IRMS. CCAs are requested to bear in mind the above uniform FC&PR criteria while determining the subcategory-wise vacancies under PwBD category 21 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 proposed to be filled up in their respective Service(s) on the basis of CSE-2024
6. This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority."
3.10 In view of the same, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the decision to exclude categories (d) and (e) is a conscious policy decision, based on the recommendations of the Expert Committee and with the concurrence of the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities. Therefore, the Courts, it is urged, cannot interfere with such policy choices unless found to be arbitrary.
3.11 Learned counsel for the respondents further reiterated the averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted that the issue in question is squarely covered by the Office Memorandum dated 17.11.2023 (Annexure R-1), issued by the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT), whereby a uniform set of Functional Classification and Physical Requirements (FC&PR) for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) has been notified for all the participating Services of the Civil Services Examination (CSE), including the Limited 22 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE). The said OM has been issued after due deliberations of an Expert Committee constituted by DoP&T, with the concurrence of the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPwD), and approval of the Competent Authority.
3.12 It is further contended that the RPwD Act, 2016, particularly Sections 33 and 34, empowers the appropriate Government to identify posts which can be held by PwBD and to notify the Functional Classifications. Pursuant thereto, DoP&T being the nodal Ministry for CSE/LDCE, has prescribed uniform criteria, which are binding on all Cadre Controlling Authorities (CCAs).
3.13 The learned counsel stressed that as per the OM dated 17.11.2023, only specific benchmark disabilities
-- such as (i) Blindness and Low Vision, (ii) Deaf and Hard of Hearing, and (iii) Multiple Disabilities from amongst the aforesaid categories (except combination of Blind and Deaf) -- along with the functional requirements enumerated therein, are suitable for the 23 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 Civil Services. It is the specific contention of the respondents that the disability claimed by the applicant does not fall within the identified and notified categories of benchmark disabilities suitable for the service/post in question. Consequently, the applicants cannot seek any right of consideration under the PwBD quota.
3.14 It is also submitted that the are bound to follow the FC&PR criteria and no relaxation or deviation is permissible in absence of a specific notification of exemption issued by DEPwD under Section 34 of the RPwD Act, 2016. In the absence of such exemption or relaxation, the respondents have no authority to enlarge the scope of eligible disabilities beyond what has been approved by the competent authority. 3.15 Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that while "reasonable accommodation" is a protected right, it cannot be invoked to override the statutory identification process carried out under Sections 33 and 34 of the RPwD Act, 2016. Reasonable accommodation may apply within the scope of 24 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 identified posts and functional requirements, such as providing assistive devices, scribes, or workplace modifications; but it cannot be extended to reclassify a post/service as suitable for a disability which has not been identified by the competent authority. Accordingly, learned counsel submityrf that the claim of the applicant seeking the benefit of "reasonable accommodation" is beyond the permissible statutory framework, and is therefore liable to be rejected. 3.16 Mr. Naresh Kaushik, learned senior counsel for the respondent- UPSC assisted by Mr. S M Zulfiqar reiterated the averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted as under:-
3.17. It is pointed out that OM dated 17.11.2023 reflects deliberations of the Expert Committee held in October 2023, wherein a uniform FCPR was adopted for all non-technical services. Similarly, the OM dated 20.12.2024 records that in the meeting of 23.11.2024, it was unanimously recommended to continue with the existing framework, and this was duly concurred with by DEPwD. Thus, due process has been followed.25
Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 Reservation has been provided to the extent of 4% across services, wherever feasible. Within the CSE, it is for each Cadre Controlling Authority (CCA) to determine which posts can be reserved for which category. UPSC, being merely a recruiting body, cannot go beyond the framework fixed by the CCAs and DoP&T. 3.18. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the Civil Services Examination Rules constitute a special framework for the unique requirements of the All India Services and Central Civil Services. The RPwD Act, while beneficial, is of general application. The proviso to Section 34 itself authorizes exemptions by notification, and the impugned OMs are such notifications.
3.19 Learned senior counsel argued that judicial review in such matters, is limited. The Court may examine the decision-making process, but not substitute its own assessment of what disabilities should or should not be included. Reliance is placed on Union of India v. Pushpa Rani (1986) 3 SCC 409 26 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 and other precedents where policy decisions were held immune from judicial interference.
3.20. Learned counsel for the respondents further placed reliance on Appendix-IV of the Civil Services Examination Rules, 2024, annexed with the notification dated 14.02.2024, wherein the Services identified as suitable for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities have been set out along with the details of the suitable category of benchmark disabilities and the corresponding functional requirements prescribed for such Services.
3.21 Learned senior counsel also presses the principle of estoppel, citing Madan Lal v. State of J&K (1995) 3 SCC 486. Having participated in the examination without objection, the applicants cannot now turn around to challenge its terms.
3.22. Concluding the arguments, learned senior counsel argued that the judgments cited by the applicants pertain largely to recruitment under the SSC or other services, not the CSE, which has its own 27 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 special requirements. Therefore, the reliance placed on those precedents is misplaced.
4. In rejoinder to the arguments put forth by learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the applicants submits as under:
4.1 The grievance of the applicants is that despite the clear statutory mandate under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 ("RPwD Act"), the respondents have failed to provide reservation in the Civil Services Examination (CSE) for categories (d) and
(e), namely persons with intellectual disability, specific learning disability, autism spectrum disorder, mental illness, and multiple disabilities. Learned counsel submitted that the reliefs in the OA are broad enough to encompass a challenge to the Civil Services Examination Rules, 2024 as well as the Office Memoranda dated 17.11.2023 and 20.12.2024, even though such challenge is not couched in explicit terms.
4.2. Section 34 RPwD Act requires a 4% reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities, equally apportioned across the five categories. This obligation, 28 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 being statutory, cannot be defeated by executive action in the form of OMs or subordinate rules. 4.3. The impugned OM dated 17.11.2023, issued by the DoPT, records that a uniform framework of "Functional Classification and Physical Requirements"
(FCPR) was prepared for all non-technical participating services in consultation with the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPwD).
However, this OM effectively excludes categories (d) and
(e) by treating them as not suitable for any service. 4.4. The subsequent OM dated 20.12.2024 reiterates and extends the same exclusionary framework, citing the recommendations of the Expert Committee dated 23.11.2024. Learned Counsel for the applicants argued that this is nothing but a mechanical continuation of the earlier decision, without fresh deliberation or material justification.
4.5. Learned counsel further argued that the respondents' reliance on "exemption" under the proviso to Section 34(1) is misplaced. It is contended that exemption can be granted only in exceptional cases, 29 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 after due consultation and with reasons recorded. Here, exemptions have been granted repeatedly for three consecutive years, without disclosure of what consultations were held, or what reasons compelled exclusion of entire categories. He further submitted that reservation precedes identification. Identification of posts is a facilitative step to implement reservation; it cannot be used to frustrate or nullify the statutory reservation itself. Reliance is placed on Union of India v. National Federation of Blind (2013) 10 SCC 772, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that reservation is mandatory and cannot be defeated by non- identification.
4.6. Learned counsel for the applicants further emphasized the principle of reasonable accommodation. Blanket exclusion of entire categories amounts to discrimination under Sections 2(y) and 3 of the RPwD Act. The respondents ought to provide accommodations or adjustments so that persons with such disabilities can participate in public employment, rather than deny them the opportunity altogether. 30
Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 4.7. On the aspect of hierarchy of laws, it is urged that the RPwD Act is a special legislation governing rights of persons with disabilities. Any subordinate legislation, such as the CSE Rules 2024 or DoPT OMs, must conform to it. They cannot override or dilute the statute.
4.8. Learned counsel also pointed out that neither OM discloses consultation with the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD) or meaningful engagement with experts or stakeholders. The minutes of the Expert Committee, belatedly produced, are cryptic and bereft of reasoning as to why categories (d) and (e) were excluded.
4.9. Further, reliance is placed on Govt. of India through Secretary & Anr. v. Ravi Prakash Gupta & Anr., (2010) 7 SCC 626, to contend that the mandate of reservation under Section 34 of the RPwD Act is obligatory in nature and the exemptions contemplated therein are to be construed narrowly and justified only on compelling grounds. It is further urged that denial of reasonable accommodation amounts to 31 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 discrimination per se, and is violative not only of the statutory scheme of the RPwD Act but also of the equality and dignity guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
5. In the written submission filed on behalf of the applicants it is submitted that both the applicants are certified with Specific Learning Disability (SLD) and despite their academic and professional achievements, they have been denied reservation benefits in the Civil Services Examination due to the exclusion of their disability category (Category D) from reservation. This exclusion is in violation of Section 34(1) of the RPwD Act, 2016, which mandates that 0.5% of vacancies be reserved for persons with Specific Learning Disabilities. Further, it is submitted on behalf of the applicant that while Category D candidates are granted age relaxation in the 2024 CSE rules, they are excluded from reservation entirely, which reflects an internal contradiction and a lack of reasoning from the respondents. The applicants argued that this exclusion is arbitrary and violates constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21. It is also asserted that the 32 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 denial of reasonable accommodation for candidates with dyslexia--such as the use of assistive technologies or scribes--is discriminatory and a violation of their right to equal opportunity. It is also highlighted that other government bodies, such as the Reserve Bank of India, have identified posts for Category D candidates, demonstrating the feasibility of their inclusion. The continued exclusion by UPSC and DoP&T is seen as rooted in bias rather than reasoned decision-making. In the written submission a prayer is made on behalf of the applicant for seeking the Tribunal's intervention to mandate the reservation of 0.5% of vacancies for Category D candidates, require the identification of suitable posts for them, and mandate the implementation of reasonable accommodations in the examination process. Reliance has also been placed upon the following judgments:
(i) IN RE: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services, 2025 INSC 300
(ii) Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya & Ors., (2020) 7 SCC 469
(iii) Vikash Kumar v. UPSC & Ors., (2021) 5 SCC 370 33 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024
(iv) Government of India v. Ravi Prakash Gupta, (2010) 7 SCC 626
6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
"Dyslexia is not a pigeonhole to say you can't do anything. It is an opportunity and a possibility to learn differently. You have magical brains, they just process differently. Don't feel like you should be held back by it." -Her Royal Highness Princess Beatrice of United Kingdom
7. ANALYSIS :
7.1 On 25.08.2025, while reserving the order in the present O.A., Mr. R. V. Sinha, learned counsel was directed to place on record the relevant files pertaining to the decision-making process whereby exemptions under Section 34 of the RPwD Act have been granted repeatedly for three consecutive years. Learned counsel has produced the said file for our perusal. We have perused the said file and would reproduce the Note # 48 mentioned therein below:
"Note # 48 Subject: Suitable Category of Benchmark Disabilities and Functional Requirements criteria for the participating Services of the Civil Services Examination (CSE)-2025 onwards - reg.34
Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 Reference Notes above
2. It is submitted that this Department being the 'Nodal Department' for Civil Services Examination (CSE) and 'appropriate Government' in the context of the participating Services of CSE, undertook an exercise to review the Suitable Category of Benchmark Disabilities and Functional Requirements criteria for CSE, 2025 onwards in respect of all the participating Services of CSE. For this purpose, an Expert Committee was constituted with the approval of Hon'ble MoS(PP). 2.
2.1. In this regard, it is submitted that after detailed deliberations in its meeting held on 2.1 13.11.2024, the Expert Committee has recommended the following:
"i.To continue the Suitable Category of Benchmark Disabilities and Functional Requirements criteria for all participating non-technical services of CSE as well as Indian Railway Management Service, in consultation with the Cadre Controlling Authorities and DEPwD as per the provisions under Section 33 and 34 of the RPwD Act, 2016 as prescribed for CSE-2024 for three years, i.e., CSE-2025, CSE-2026 and CSE- 2027.
The uniform set of Suitable Category of Benchmark Disabilities and Functional Requirements criteria for all the non- Technical participating Services and IRMS is as under:
Suitable Category Category(ies) for Functional of Benchmark which Identified Requirements Disabilities
(i) Locomotor Disability including OA, OL, BA, OAL, Cerebral Palsy, BLA, BLOA, BL, Leprosy Cured, S, SE, H, RW, C BAOL, SD, SI, CP, Dwarfism, Acid LC, Dw, AAV, MDy Attack Victims and Muscular Dystrophy;
MF, PP, S, ST, W, L,
(ii) Blindness and Low C, RW (including in
LV, B
Vision braille/software), H,
KC, BN
35
Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024
Suitable Category
Category(ies) for Functional
of Benchmark
which Identified Requirements
Disabilities
(iii) Deaf and Hard of MF, PP, S, ST, W, L,
D, HH
Hearing C, RW, KC, BN
Any combination of
FCs from different
(iv) Multiple disability
categories as
from amongst only S, RW (including in
allowed under (i) to
above three braille/software), C
(iii), except the
categories
combination of blind
& deaf (B+D)
List of Abbreviations used:
Suitable categories of Benchmark Disabilities One Arm OA One Leg OL Both Arms BA One Arm and One Leg OAL Both legs and Both Arms BLA Both Legs and One Arm BLOA Both Legs BL Both Arms and One Leg BAOL Spinal Deformity SD Spinal Injury SI Cerebral Palsy CP Leprosy Cured LC Dwarfism Dw Acid Attack Victims AAV Muscular Dystrophy MDy Low Vision LV Blind B Deaf D Hard of Hearing HH Multiple Disabilities MD Functional Requirements Sitting S Standing ST Walking W Seeing SE Hearing H Reading and Writing RW Communication C Manipulation with fingers MF Pulling and Pushing PP 36 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 Lifting L Kneeling and Crouching KC Bending BN Jumping JU Climbing CL ii. To continue the exclusion of disabilities mentioned under clause (d) of the Section 34(1) of the RPwD Act, 2016 [i.e., autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness] for three years, i.e., CSE-2025, CSE-2026 and CSE-2027."
3. Accordingly, vide O.M. No. 13018/04/2023-AIS-I dated 02.12.2024, the same was conveyed to Department of Empowerment Persons with Disabilities (DEPwD) and Cadre Controlling Authority (CCAs) of the Non-Technical participating Services of CSE including IRMS for their concurrence.
4. In response to this Department O.M. dated 02.12.2024, DEPwD vide its O.M. No. 02-43/2023- DD-III dated 20.12.2024, has also conveyed its concurrence on the Expert Committee, DoPT's recommendation to continue with the current Suitable Category of Benchmark Disabilities and Functional Requirements criteria and to exclude the clause (d) of Section 34(1) of the RPwD Act, 2016 from identification for CSE-2025, CSE-2026 and CSE-2027 in r/o all participating services of CSE.
5.In view of the above, we may now solicit the approval of Hon'ble MoS(PP) on the recommendations of the Expert Committee as mentioned in para 2.1. After approval the same may be conveyed to CCAs of the Non-Technical participating Services of CSE including IRMS for compliance and determining the vacancies proposed to be filled up in their respective Service(s) on the basis of CSE-2025, CSE-2026 and CSE-2027, as per DFA/65919.
6.Accordingly, file is submitted for kind consideration and approval of the Hon'ble MoS(PP).
26/12/2024 05:16 pm Ritesh Tiwari ASSISTANT SECTION OFFICER"
37
Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024
7.1.1. Pursuant to the above, an office Memordaum dated 01.01.2025 was issued by the DoP&T, which reads as under:
"OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Approved uniform set of Suitable Category of Benchmark Disabilities and Functional Requirements criteria for the participating Services of the Civil Services Examination (CSE)-2025 onwards - reg.
The undersigned is directed to refer to the subject cited above and to say that being the Nodal Department for the Civil Services Examination (CSE) and 'appropriate Government' in the context of the participating Services of CSE, an Expert Committee was constituted by this Department for the review of Suitable Category of Benchmark Disabilities and Functional Requirements criteria for CSE, 2025 onwards in respect of all the participating Services of CSE.
In this regard, it is stated that after detailed deliberations in its meeting held on 13.11.2024, the Expert Committee has recommended the following: 2.
To continue the Suitable Category of Benchmark Disabilities and Functional Requirements criteria for all participating non-technical services of CSE as well as Indian Railway Management Service, in consultation with the Cadre Controlling Authorities and DEPwD as per the provisions under Section 33 and 34 of the RPwD Act, 2016 as prescribed for CSE-2024 for three years, i.e., CSE-2025, CSE-2026 and CSE-2027. "i.
The following uniform set of Suitable Category of Benchmark Disabilities and Functional Requirements criteria for all the non- Technical participating Services and IRMS:
Suitable Category of Category(ies) for Functional Benchmark which Identified Requirements Disabilities
(i) Locomotor Disability including Cerebral OA, OL, BA, OAL, BLA, Palsy, Leprosy Cured, BLOA, BL, BAOL, SD, S, SE, H, RW, C Dwarfism, Acid Attack SI, CP, LC, Dw, AAV, Victims and Muscular MDy Dystrophy;
MF, PP, S, ST, W, L,
(ii) Blindness and Low C, RW (including in
LV, B
Vision braille/software), H,
KC, BN
(iii) Deaf and Hard of MF, PP, S, ST, W, L,
D, HH
Hearing C, RW, KC, BN
38
Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024
Suitable Category of
Category(ies) for Functional
Benchmark
which Identified Requirements
Disabilities
Any combination of
FCs from different
(iv) Multiple disability
categories as allowed S, RW (including in from amongst only under (i) to (iii), except braille/software), C above three categories the combination of blind & deaf (B+D) List of Abbreviations used:
Suitable categories of Benchmark Functional Requirements Disabilities One Arm OA Sitting S One Leg OL Standing ST Both Arms BA Walking W One Arm and One Leg OAL Seeing SE Both legs and Both Arms BLA Hearing H Both Legs and One Arm BLOA Reading and Writing RW Both Legs BL Communication C Manipulation with fingers Both Arms and One Leg BAOL MF Spinal Deformity SD Pulling and Pushing PP Spinal Injury SI Lifting L Kneeling and Crouching Cerebral Palsy CP KC Leprosy Cured LC Bending BN Dwarfism Dw Jumping JU Acid Attack Victims AAV Climbing CL Muscular Dystrophy MDy Low Vision LV Blind B Deaf D Hard of Hearing HH Multiple Disabilities MD ii.To continue the exclusion of disabilities mentioned under clause (d) of the Section 34(1) of the RPwD Act, 2016 [i.e., autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness] for three years, i.e., CSE-2025, CSE-2026 and CSE-2027."
3.The Record of Discussion (RoD) of the said meeting of the Expert Committee was forwarded for the concurrence of DEPwD and Cadre Controlling Authority (CCAs) of the participating Services of CSE.
4.The DEPwD vide its O.M. No. 02-43/2023-DD-III dated 20.12.2024 has now conveyed its concurrence on the Expert Committee, DoPT's recommendation to continue with the current Suitable Category of 39 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 Benchmark Disabilities and Functional Requirements criteria and to exclude the clause (d) of Section 34(1) of the RPwD Act, 2016 from identification for CSE-2025, CSE-2026 and CSE-2027 in r/o all participating services of CSE.
5.This is for information of all the CCAs of the Non-Technical participating Services of the CSE as well as IRMS. CCAs are requested to take into account the above uniform set of Suitable Category of Benchmark Disabilities and Functional Requirements criteria while determining the subcategory-wise vacancies under each PwBD category proposed to be filled up in their respective Service(s) on the basis of CSE-2025, CSE-2026 and CSE-2027.
This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority." 7.1.2. The members of the Expert Committee, as mentioned in the O.M. dated 01.012025, were as under:
"1. Sh. Avinash Joshi, AS(S&V), DoPT - Chairperson
2. Sh. Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, AS(PP), DoPT - Representative of Reservation Division, DoPT - Member
3. Ms. Ipsita Mitra, Deputy Secretary, DEPwD - Representative of Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPwD) - Member
4. Dr. Rupali Roy, ADG, DGHS - Representative of Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) - Member
5. Dr. Sanjay Wadhwa, Professor & Head, Deptt. of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation (PMR), AIIMS, New Delhi -Representative of AIIMS, New Delhi - Member
6. Sh. Ravi Kumar Arora, IAS - Member
7. Sh. Nikhil Prasanna Jayan, IRS(IT) - Member
8. Sh. Nipun Kumar Malhotra, Nipman Foundation - Member
9. Ms. Charulata Somal, DS (AIS-I), DoPT- Member- Secretary"
7.1.3. The aforesaid Expert Committee members did not involve any of the experts on the subject in terms of 40 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 Note # 1, clause 10, which reads, which reads as under:
"10. It is submitted that the Expert Committee had recommended that for CSE-2025, the Suitable Category of Benchmark Disabilities and Functional Requirements criteria, including the inclusion/exclusion of disabilities mentioned under clause (d) of the Section 34(1) of the RPwD Act, 2016 [i.e., autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness] may be reviewed with involvement of experts on the subject."
7.1.4. The proposal for reconstitution of the Committee overlooked the aforesaid recommendation and did not incorporate the involvement of "experts on the subject,"
which was essential to arrive at a fair and informed decision regarding the determination of suitable categories of benchmark disabilities and functional requirements.
7.2. Specific Learning Disabilities (SLDs) 7.2.1. We are dealing with the present case in the context of Specific Learning Disabilities (SLDs), which encompass a range of neurological conditions that affect how individuals receive, process, and express information. Common types of SLDs include dyslexia, dysgraphia, dyscalculia, and Nonverbal Learning Disability (NVLD). These conditions can impair abilities 41 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 related to reading, writing, mathematical reasoning, and other cognitive skills.
7.2.2. In the 1980s, the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD) defined the term "learning disability" as:
"a heterogeneous group of disorders manifested by significant difficulties in the acquisition and use of listening, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning or mathematical abilities. These disorders are intrinsic to the individual and presumed to be due to Central Nervous System Dysfunction. Even though a learning disability may occur concomitantly with other handicapping conditions (e.g. sensory impairment, intellectual disability, social and emotional disturbance) or environmental influences (e.g. cultural differences, insufficient/inappropriate instruction, psychogenic factors) it is not the direct result of those conditions or influences.
7.2.3. People with Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) can also be exceptionally gifted and talented. Examples of such individuals include Walt Disney, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Michael Phelps, Thomas Edison, Steven Spielberg, Tom Cruise, and many others, all of whom had SLDs.
7.3. Legal Frame Work and Guarantee 7.3.1. Legislation in the United States :42
Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 The Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, effective May 1977, guarantees certain rights to individuals with disabilities, particularly in the areas of education and employment, including in schools, colleges, and university settings. India has also adopted the U.S. federal definition of Specific Learning Disabilities (SLDs).
7.3.2. In Indian Context :
Section 20 of RPwD Act, 2016, read with the second proviso to Section 34(1), provides that, having regard to the nature of work carried out in any "establishment," the appropriate authority may, by notification and subject to such conditions as may be specified, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section.
Reservation in promotions shall be governed in accordance with the instructions issued by the appropriate government from time to time.
This discussion in the present matter pertains to the Civil Services Examination conducted under the 43 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 aegis of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) for various constituent services across different ministries of the Government of India. The objective of granting exemptions depends on the nature of work carried out within a given establishment.
All matters related to the personnel policies of Central Government employees--excluding officers of the All India Services--along with the functioning of the Joint Consultative Machinery for Central Government employees, and matters related to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), Staff Selection Commission (SSC), and Public Enterprises Selection Board (PESB), are handled by the Establishment Division. As per Section 2 of the All India Services Act, 1951, the term "All India Service" refers to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and the Indian Police Service (IPS).
It is important to note that The National Trust for the Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation, and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 was enacted to provide for the establishment of a 44 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 national-level body dedicated to the welfare of persons with these disabilities. In accordance with Section 10(g) of the Act, emphasis must be placed on facilitating the realization of equal opportunities, the protection of rights, and the full participation of persons with disabilities.
7.4. Exemption From Reservation:
If any Department or Ministry of the Central Government considers it necessary to exempt any establishment, either partially or fully, from the provisions of reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities, it shall submit a detailed proposal with full justification to the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities. Based on the nature of work carried out in the concerned establishment, and in consultation with the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD), the Department may, by notification and subject to such conditions as may be specified therein, grant an exemption from the provisions of reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities.45
Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 7.5. Effecting Reservation :
Reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities is implemented through the maintenance of a proper roster. To ensure that such individuals are given a fair opportunity for consideration against vacancies in identified posts, a formal requisition notice must be issued. The following points shall be kept in view while sending the requisition to the Staff Selection Commission (SSC), Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), or other recruiting agencies, and while advertising vacancies:
(i) The number of vacancies reserved for SC/ST/OBC/Ex-Servicemen/Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBDs) must be clearly specified.
For Persons with Benchmark Disabilities, vacancies must be further reported separately under the following four categories of benchmark disabilities:
1. Blindness and low vision
2. Deaf and hard of hearing 46 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024
3. Locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims, and muscular dystrophy
4. Autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability, and mental illness; multiple disabilities from among persons under clauses (1) to (4), including deaf-blindness
(ii) In the case of vacancies in posts identified as suitable for persons with benchmark disabilities, it must be clearly indicated that the post is so identified.
Candidates belonging to the relevant category/categories of benchmark disabilities for which the post is identified as suitable shall be allowed to apply even if no specific reservation has been earmarked for them.
Such candidates shall be considered for selection on the basis of general standards of merit, provided the post is identified as suitable for their category of disability.
47
Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024
(iii) For all posts identified as suitable for persons with benchmark disabilities, regardless of whether vacancies are reserved or not, the following must be clearly indicated in the advertisement or requisition:
Category of disability for which the post is identified as suitable Functional classification Physical requirements necessary to perform the duties associated with the post
(iv) Only persons with benchmark disabilities are eligible to avail reservation under this category.
A "person with benchmark disability" is defined as an individual with not less than 40% of a specified disability, where:
The disability has either not been defined in measurable terms, or Has been defined in measurable terms and certified by a competent certifying authority.
(v) Certificate by the Requisitioning Authority To ensure proper implementation of reservation provisions for persons with benchmark disabilities, the 48 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 requisitioning authority, while sending the requisition to the UPSC, SSC, or other recruiting agencies, shall furnish the following certificate:
"It is certified that the requirements of the 'THE RIGHTS OF PERSONSWITH DISABLITIES ACT, 2016' on 28th December, 2016, which took effect from 19th day of April, 2017 and the policy relating to reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities has been taken care of while sending this requisition.
The vacancies reported in this requisition fall at points no..__of cycle no of 100 point reservation roster out of which number of vacancies are reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities."
7.6. Case Reference :
7.6.1. In a notable judgment delivered in Naman Verma v. Director, Indian Institute of Technology and Others, Civil Appeal No. 3886 of 2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted relief to a student with a learning disability. The appellant, Naman Verma, was diagnosed with dyscalculia, a specific learning disability characterized by difficulty in learning and comprehending mathematical concepts.
At the time, under the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of 49 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, individuals with learning disabilities (PLDs) were not entitled to reservation in educational institutions, as the Act only extended such benefits to persons with physical disabilities (PDs).
The appellant had applied for admission to a Master's program in Design under the PD quota at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Mumbai. However, his application was rejected on the grounds that the PD quota was limited to the following categories:
1. Locomotor disability and cerebral palsy
2. Visual impairments
3. Speech and hearing impairments 7.7. In the case of Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2 of 2024 - In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services, decided on March 12, 2025, the Apex Court observed as follows:
"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, 50 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 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 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 51 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 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).
7.8. In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1018 of 2022 - Gulshan Kumar v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection & Ors., decided on February 3, 2025, the Apex Court held as follows:
10. Thus, it is clear from the above that the rights of disabled persons are less instructive and more general, and that the right to education, the right to equality, and the right against discrimination accorded to them will only be truly realized when State structures form policies, laws, and rules to provide equal access and reasonable accommodation to such persons.
******
18. It is also to be pointed out that the constitution bench of this Court in Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh and othersconsidered the question as to whether fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution can be claimed against anyone who is not a state instrumentality, and answered the same in the affirmative with a majority of 4:1. It was clarified that rights under Articles 19 and 21 can be enforced even against private entities and it overrides the principle laid down in Rajbir (supra). Hence, the contention of the Respondent 52 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 No.1 that they are not amenable to writ jurisdiction cannot be countenanced by us. It is noteworthy mentioning that the Office Memorandum clearly stated that the guidelines are applicable to all the authorities. As such, the benefits conferred by the statute should be provided for all the PwD candidates and they cannot be denied on the ground of absence of accountability and/or lack of duty on enforceability.
19. In the ultimate analysis, we are of the considered view that the guidelines issued by the Respondent No.5 pursuant to the directions of this Court, have to be enforced, by extending the benefits for PwBD candidates to all PwD candidates in writing their examinations, without any hindrance. Accordingly, we direct the Respondent No.5 to revisit the Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2022, remove the restrictions and grant relaxations in a reasonable manner and incorporate the following aspects and thereby, re-notify the same afresh, within a period of two months:
(i)direct all the authorities / recruitment agencies / examining bodies to uniformly follow the guidelines issued by the Respondent No.5, which is the nodal agency and ensure strict adherence through periodic surveys / verification;
(ii)carry out periodic sensitization drive at educational institutions to raise awareness among the examination conducting bodies so as to ensure that the OMs are effectively implemented;
(iii)set up a grievance redressal portal to register complaints, which would permit the candidates to approach it first before approaching the court of law;
(iv)inspect the guidelines framed by different authorities and re-notify the existing guidelines with an aim to ensure compliance;
(v)extend the validity of the scribe certificate (currently being valid only for 6 months) to prevent the long wait time after applying, especially, in rural areas;
(vi)set up Incentive programs for scribes to ensure their availability and provide necessary training;53
Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024
(vii)provide some time prior to the examination to allow the candidates to familiarize themselves with the scribe to ensure that there is a sense of comfort while communicating with the scribe during the examination;
(viii)offer PwD candidates a choice of examination modes, such as scribe, braille, large print, audio recording of answers, etc.;
(ix) take penal action against authorities / officials in charge of decision- making process, who fail to follow the guidelines set out by the Respondent No.5 and formulate guidelines which exclude PwD;
(x) sensitise the persons working for the respondent authorities, and train them on a regular basis, to address the reasonable accommodation needs of PwDs; and
(xi) ensure strict compliance of the letter and spirit of the judgments in Vikash Kumar and Avni Prakash as well as the provisions of the RPwD Act, 2016, with a special focus on 'reasonable accommodation'.
20. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Post the matter after two months "for reporting compliance".
7.9. In Civil Appeal No. 6785 of 2023 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12671 of 2022] - Mohamed Ibrahim v. The Chairman & Managing Director & Ors., decided on October 16, 2023, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"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.54
Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024
(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, the ApexCourt observed:
"40. In international human rights law, equality is founded upon two complementary principles: non-
discrimination and reasonable 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."
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 55 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 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:
"(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 56 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 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." 7.10. NEED AND WANT :
A need is something essential for living a safe and healthy life, while a want is something desirable but not essential, fulfilled only after all needs are met. An 57 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 "exemption" is generally a want rather than a need. In many cases, what is required is not an exemption but rather an adjustment, concession, modification, or recognition. As far as reasonably practicable, efforts should be made to permit and encourage the person to participate fully or to enhance their ability to participate, rather than neglecting their inclusion.
"If you look into someone's face long enough, eventually you'll feel like you're looking at yourself." -- Paul Auster 7.11. There is no dispute that seeking an exemption falls within the ambit and scope of the proviso to Section 34 of the Act. Such matters often involve policy decisions, with which courts are generally reluctant to interfere. As Justice Krishna Iyer observed in State of Kerala v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd.
(1973) 2 SCC 713:
"What programme of agrarian reform should be initiated to satisfy the requirement of rural uplift in a particular community under the prevailing circumstances is a matter for legislative judgment. In this field, the legislature is the policy maker, and the court cannot assume the role of an economic advisor or censor competent to pronounce whether a particular programme of agrarian reform is good or bad from the point of view of the needs of the community. The sole issue for the court is whether it is in fact a scheme of agrarian reform, and if it is, 58 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 the prudence or folly thereof falls outside the orbit of judicial review, being a blend of policy, politics, and economics ordinarily beyond the expertise and proper function of the court."
7.12. What requires scrutiny is whether the exemption was necessary, particularly when weighed against the concept of reasonable accommodation and the statutorily reserved quota. It is the decision-making process and its purpose that must be subject to judicial examination--not the decision itself. 7.13 In Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 -- Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, decided on March 4, 2020, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
" 41 . The contextual balancing involves 'proportionality test'. [See K S Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1]. The test is to see whether the release of information would be necessary, depends on the information seeker showing the 'pressing social need' or 'compelling requirement for upholding the democratic values'. We can easily conclude that the exemption of public interest as occurring under Section 8(1)(j) requires a balancing test to be adopted. We need to distinguish two separate concepts i.e. "interest of the public"
and "something in the public interest." Therefore, the material distinction between the aforesaid concepts concern those matters which affect political, moral and material welfare of the public need to be distinguished from those for public entertainment, curiosity or amusement. Under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act requires us to hold that only the former is an exception to the exemption. Although we must note that the majority opinion in K S Puttaswamy (supra) has held that the data 59 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 privacy is part of the right to privacy, we need to note that the concept of data protection is still developing [refer Google Spain v. AEPD, C/131/12; Bavarian Lager v Commission, [2007] ECR II- 4523]. As we are not concerned with the aforesaid aspects, we need not indulge any more than to state that there is an urgent requirement for integrating the principles of data protection into the right to information jurisprudence."
7.14. Any attempt to invoke the exemption provision must be carefully evaluated in light of the statutory reservation quota provided under the Act, particularly in relation to the rights of persons with Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD). Exemptions are permitted only in the "public interest" and must not be used to undermine or bypass the pre-defined reservation quotas, such as those provided under clause (d) of Section 34 of the Act. It is the responsibility of the respondents to address and justify such decisions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976), emphasized that reservation policies must be rational and should not violate the fundamental right to equality. It is well-settled law that a substantive right, once accrued to a person, cannot be unilaterally taken away without due process or notice. While the State possesses policy discretion, any denial of reservation must be supported by valid 60 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 reasoning and quantifiable data, as affirmed in Mukesh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 3 SCC 1.
7.15. In Madras Bar Association vs Union of India, Writ Petiton (Civil) no 502 of 2021 decided on 14.07.2021, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"19. Ordinarily in pure "policy" matters falling within Parliamentary or executive domain, such as economic, commercial, financial policies, or other areas such as energy, natural resources etc, this court's standard of judicial review is deferential. In almost all subject matters over which legislative bodies enact law, the wisdom of the policy is rarely questioned; it is too well recognised that in such matters, judicial review extends to issues concerning liberties of citizens, and further, whether the particular subject matter falls within the legislative field of the concerned legislative body. In matters where the executive implements those laws, the scrutiny extends to further seeing the legality and constitutionality of such action. Where there is no law, the court considers whether executive competence to act is traceable to the particular legislative field under the Constitution, and whether the executive action sans law, abridges people's liberties".....Therefore, it is the "equal protection" of laws, guaranteed to all persons, through institutions that assure the same competence of its personnel, the same fair procedure, and the same independence of adjudicators as is available in existing courts, that stands directly implicated. Consequently, when this court scrutinizes any law or measure dealing with a new adjudicatory mechanism, it is through the equal protection of law clause under Article 14 of the Constitution."61
Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024
8. Need for a change in Decision-Making Process while implementing objectives under the Rpwd Act:
"Learning to stand in somebody else's shoes, to see through their eyes -- that's how peace begins. And it's up to you to make that happen. Empathy is a quality of character that can change the world."
-- Barack Obama 8.1. Conditions such as Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) necessitate an inclusive inquiry. The fundamental questions to consider are: How can society become more inclusive and supportive of persons with disabilities? What rights and protections are guaranteed to them? Individuals with benchmark SLDs require not only legal protection but also empathetic understanding.
8.2 There is a long-standing need for a National Policy on Learning Disabilities, to be framed by the Ministry of Education (formerly MHRD) in consultation with the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT). This policy must focus on the identification of suitable posts and services to ensure compliance with the reservation provisions under clause (d) of Section 34 of the RPwD 62 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 Act for the purposes of the Civil Services Examination (CSE).
8.3 A psychologist certified by the Central Government, with expertise specifically in learning disabilities, particularly from premier institutions such as AIIMS, should be involved in the decision-making process. These specialists should be available in all Central Government and state-run public hospitals. Their expert opinion must guide the assessment of whether a general or service-specific exemption is necessary across services included in the CSE.
8.4 The proposed national policy must provide a clear definition of Learning Disabilities and include uniform standards for recognition, diagnosis, certification, and assessment -- particularly in relation to recruitment and selection.
8.5 Authorities must apply their minds to data-driven evaluations -- examining job profiles, employment nature, and the feasibility of creating posts suitable for SLD candidates across each constituent service. It is necessary to determine whether the claimed exemption 63 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 is genuinely warranted or is merely a smokescreen to avoid implementing the statutorily mandated quota. This consultative process must involve a certified specialist psychologist.
8.6 Concessions for persons with LDs must be specific to the type of disorder. For example, individuals with dyscalculia should be permitted to opt for vocational or non-mathematical roles. The legal response should not be one of exclusion, but of reasonable accommodation and structural adjustment.
8.7 The Office Memorandum (OM) dated 24.12.2024 undermines the foundational principle of equality. It raises a fundamental question: Can such an exemption be considered a reasonable classification? The protection under clause (d) of Section 34 is meant to be inclusive, not exclusive. This OM violates the principle of non-discrimination, resulting in an arbitrary denial of equal opportunity.
8.8. Once persons with benchmark disabilities under clause (d) are permitted to compete within their category, their merit is assessed within that group 64 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 against the reserved quota of 0.5%. Denial of participation by invoking this OM is contrary to both the letter and spirit of the Act. Clause (d) itself establishes a recognized class, and a defined percentage of reservation is already earmarked. Thus, exemption from this clause for future years contradicts the principle of equality and leads to discriminatory treatment, rendering the OM ultra vires the statute. 8.9 To be clear, this is not to say that the respondents lack the power or right to seek an exemption. However, any such exemption must align with the overall scheme and object of the RPwD Act. It must not be preventive or restrictive in nature, nor should it lack rational nexus or intelligible differentia relevant to the objective it seeks to achieve.
8.10 Consider a situation where a person with 40% or more benchmark disability, under treatment, qualifies the CSE on his/her own merit under the general category. Can such a candidate still be denied appointment? This is a critical question. The decision 65 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 to seek exemption under the Act must be supported by valid reasoning and motive.
8.11 A series of judgments were cited by the respondents concerning the maintainability of the relief sought and the absence of any prior legal challenge to the exemption granted for three consecutive years. However, granting exemption for three successive years reveals a predetermined intent to deny reservation benefits to a specific category of persons with benchmark disabilities -- an act that is both arbitrary and discriminatory, especially when no supporting documentation or data has been placed on record. 8.12. This is not a mere technical issue. Reservation under a special statute like the RPwD Act cannot be disregarded on procedural grounds. Courts have consistently held that substantive justice must prevail over hyper-technical objections in matters involving constitutional mandates for the upliftment of disadvantaged groups.
8.13. While this Tribunal does not seek to outrightly quash the exemption granted over successive years (as 66 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 policy decisions must undergo due consultation with all stakeholders and experts), we emphasize that the repeated grant of exemption demands serious introspection. It raises the larger question: Are the authorities, who ought to function as a model employer, instead becoming an example of policy erosion? 8.14. This concern becomes more serious when one considers whether the CSE 2024 advertisement included a public notice or any appended note regarding the exemption sought under clause (d). If no such disclosure was made, it undermines the purpose of the RPwD Act and defeats the principle of transparency.
8.15. It is hard to accept that, among the 19 services included under CSE, there are no roles identified where persons with benchmark disabilities under clause (d) could be reasonably accommodated within the 0.5% quota. The right or power to seek exemption cannot be exercised arbitrarily through an OM that effectively nullifies the statutory rights of persons with benchmark disabilities.
67
Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 8.16. An exemption of such sweeping nature, granted in general for three consecutive years, cannot simply be pulled out of a hat.
9. EPILOGUE :
9.1. Undisputedly, in the present case, the "experts on the subject," who were essential to arrive at a fair and informed decision regarding the determination of suitable categories of benchmark disabilities and functional requirements were not part of the Expert Committee.
9.2. While writing the present judgment, this Tribunal came across a recent decision in I.A. No. 130117/2018 in C.A. No. 11938/2016 titled Reena Banerjee and Others v. Government of NCT of Delhi, decided on 12.09.2025, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued various directions regarding a nationwide monitoring of all State-run institutions under the initiative styled as Project Ability Empowerment. While issuing a slew of directions, the Apex Court in paragraph 35 observed as under:
"35. Taking into consideration the above-discussed framework and rights-based jurisprudence of this 68 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 Court, it is clear that our constitutional courts have consistently read the rights of persons with disabilities into the broader constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 14 has been expanded to include substantive equality, requiring not only equal treatment but also reasonable accommodation and removal of systemic barriers. Article 19, particularly the right to freedom of expression and movement, has been interpreted to mandate accessible formats, transport, and communication. Article 21 anchors the right to life with dignity, recognising that dignity is not a privilege but an entitlement, especially for those who are institutionally marginalised. The present case, concerning the implementation of the RPwD Act along with the prolonged institutionalisation and lack of access to education, health, and community life for persons residing in State-run care 46 institution/homes, must therefore be viewed through this expansive constitutional lens. The proposed monitoring and assessment must not be limited to administrative compliance but must engage with the question of whether institutional structures respect the autonomy, equality, and dignity of persons with disabilities as guaranteed under the Indian Constitution."
In light of the above, the respondents shall also take due note of the directions passed by the Apex Court in Reena Banerjee (supra).
10. CONCLUSION :
10.1. To conclude: reservation is a mandate, while exemption is discretionary -- to be exercised strictly in accordance with the statutory scheme. A person with benchmark disability under clause (d) of Section 34 represents a recognized legal "circumstance." In that context, it remains unclear under what circumstances 69 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024 the exemption for three successive years was issued in one go. We are still left wondering.
10.2. In view of the above, the Original Application is disposed of with the following directions to the respondent authorities:
(i) Having regard to the observations made in Paragraph 8, the Office Memorandum dated 20.12.2024 must be reconsidered and re-
examined by the respondents.
(ii) This exercise must be undertaken in consultation with the concerned ministries governing the 19 constituent services under CSE, as well as with experts in the medical field, to identify suitable posts for persons with SLDs.
(iii) A High-Powered Committee should be constituted to carry out this exercise and ensure that the statutory mandate of reservation is fulfilled.
(iv) Any future exemption must be examined critically
-- whether it should apply to all 19 services or to specific ones only, and such decision must be supported by objective data and policy reasoning. 70 Item No.36/ Court-III O.A. No.3553/2024
(v) The object and purpose of any exemption under clause (d) of Section 34 must be publicly disclosed, preferably as a note in the CSE 2026 advertisement.
(vi) This entire exercise must be completed prior to the issuance of the advertisement notification for CSE 2026.
10.3. With these directions, the Original Application stands disposed of.
10.4. The original record produced by Mr. R. V. Sinha, learned counsel, shall be returned to him by the Court Officer against proper receipt/acknowledgement. 10.5. Pending M.A.s, if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg) Member (A) Member (J) /sm/