Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Sathwick S vs Department Of Personnel And Training on 30 April, 2026
1
OA No.170/00464/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00464/2025
ORDER RESERVED ON: 13.04.2026
DATE OF ORDER: 30.04.2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA ..MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. SANTOSH MEHRA ..MEMBER(A)
1. Sathwick S
S/o Sathyanarayana C,
Aged about 24 years,
R/o #85, Main, 9th Cross,
Kamakshi Hospital Road,
Saraswathipuram,
Mysore- 570009 ......Applicant
(By Advocate, Smt. Akkamahadevi Hiremath)
Vs.
1. Union of India,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, PG and Pensions (DOPT),
Government of India, North Block, New Delhi-110001
2. Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
Represented by Secretary,
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi-110069
3. The Secretary
Dept. of Social Justice & Empowerment
Government of India
604, A-Wing Shastri Bhavan
New Delhi-110001 .....Respondents
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
L RANI2026.05.08
12:38:07+05'30'
2
OA No.170/00464/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
(By Advocate, Shri N. Amaresh for Respondents No. 1 and 2, Respondent
No. 3- ex-parte)
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Santosh Mehra ......Member(A)
Through this OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:
"(a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to include the reservation to persons with Specific Learning Disability in the Examination Notice in No 05/2025-CSP dated 22-1-2025 as per the Right of Persons with Disability Act, 2016 and Further direct the Respondents to create supernumerary post to accommodate the Applicant with Specific Learning Disability, coming under the Clause (d) of Section 34(1) of the Right of Persons with Disability Act, 2016, in the interest of justice.
(b) ISSUE such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit to grant in the interest of justice and equity, including the award of costs of this application,
2. The facts in in a nutshell are as follows:
The Applicant duly filled the Application Form in response to the Examination Notice No 05/2025-CSP dated 22-1-2025 for Civil Services Examination. The said Notification did not provide for reservation for Persons with 'Specific Learning Disability'. The Applicant wrote the Preliminary examination, was declared successful and thereafter appeared in the Mains exam. The Applicant apprehends that not providing reservation for SLDs takes away his right to enter into Service as he cannot compete with the General category persons. Hence, the Applicant has approached this KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore L RANI2026.05.08 12:38:07+05'30' 3 OA No.170/00464/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Hon'ble Court seeking directions to the Respondents 1 and 2 to provide reservation to SLD category, as per RPWD Act, 2016 to create a level-
playing field for him to be accommodated in the All India Civil Services.
Hence, this OA.
3. Applicant
1. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the applicant is a Person with Bench Mark Disability coming under 'Specific Learning Disability' (SLD).
2. The Central Government enacted the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, replacing the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, with the objective of ensuring that persons with disabilities participate fully in society, live with dignity and enjoy equality and non-discrimination. The Act provides protection to the disabled persons' rights in education and employment. Section 3 of the Act provides for Equality and non-discrimination.
3. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant states that according to Section 33 of the Act, the appropriate Government shall identify posts in the establishments which can be held by certain categories of persons with benchmark disabilities in respect of the vacancies reserved in accordance with the provisions of Section 34.
4. Section 34 provides for Reservation to persons with benchmark disabilities, which is extracted hereunder:
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
L RANI2026.05.08
12:38:07+05'30'
4
OA No.170/00464/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
"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."
5. According to Learned Counsel for the Applicant, the Applicant comes under Section 3(1)(d) which categorises 'Specific Learning Disability' (SLD) as one of the disabilities. As per the said provision, 1% reservation has to be provided mandatorily to the candidates belonging to 34 (1)(d) and (e) categories of disability.
6. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant was diagnosed with SLD at an early age. The parents of the Applicant got him evaluated periodically from the age of 8 primarily, from All India Institute of Speech & Hearing, Mysore.
7. As per the Copies of the Evaluation Reports from the Institute dated 22.05.2013, 10.11.2014, 18.5.2015, 7.9.2017, 12.6.2018, the Applicant has KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore L RANI2026.05.08 12:38:07+05'30' 5 OA No.170/00464/2025/CAT/BANGALORE learning disability. The Institute also issued a Certificate dated 7-7-2023 that the Applicant has Developmental Learning Disorder, Unspecified, Average Intelligence which amounts to 40% disability.
8. Based on these Evaluation Reports, KR Hospital, Mysore Medical College, Mysore has issued out Patient Record stating that the applicant has 40% Disability in Learning. Based on the Patient Record, the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, Mysore, issued a Unique Disability ID (UDID) that the applicant has Specific Learning Disability by birth.
9. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the 2nd Respondent issued Examination Notice in No 05/2025-CSP dated 22-1-2025 inviting applications from eligible candidates for Civil Services Examination. The Notification provides a List of Services which are identified as suitable for Persons with Benchmark Disability. Under the said list, categories which are identified suitable for 19 Civil Services are mentioned as follows:
(i) Locomotor Disability including Cerebral Palsy, Leprosy Cured, Dwarfism, Acid Attack Victims and Muscular Dystrophy
(ii) Blindness and Low Vision
(iii) Deaf and Hard of Hearing
(iv) Multiple Disability from amongst only above three categories.
10. Since, the 1st and 2nd Respondents have excluded the Specific Learning Disability from the list of disabilities suitable for the Civil Services without any reasons, the Applicant, on noticing the same sent an e-mail to the 2nd Respondent- DoPT and the UPSC Grievance Cell pointing out that no KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore L RANI2026.05.08 12:38:07+05'30' 6 OA No.170/00464/2025/CAT/BANGALORE reservation has been provided under Clauses (d) and (e) under Section 34(1) of the Act, which includes Specific Learning Disability.
11. Thereafter, the Applicant being the aspirant, uploaded his duly filled application online. The Applicant filled the PwBD Category in the Application, duly enclosing the certificates issued by the competent authority along with his Application form.
12. The 2nd Respondent-UPSC issued Admit Card for the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, held on 25-5-2025 which showed the Disability Status of the Applicant as Clause (d) of Sub Section (1) of Section 34. He was granted Compensatory Time sought for by the Applicant which was 20 mins per hour. The Applicant got 60 mins for 3-hour examination time.
13. As the Applicant passed the Preliminary Examination, the 2nd Respondent UPSC issued him the Admit Card for the Civil Services (Main) Examination. The Applicant appeared in and wrote the Mains exam on 22-8-2025 till 31-8- 2025, availing the Compensatory Time as eligible.
14. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant points out that the 1st Respondent- DoPT has not reserved 1% of posts for the persons with Specific Learning Disability in the total of 979 posts, though 38 posts are reserved for disabilities coming under Section 34(1) (a) to (c). The 2nd Respondent-UPSC has excluded the Specific Learning Disability from the list of disabilities suitable for the Civil Services without any reasons which violates the letter and spirit of RPWD Act as Specific Learning Disability comes under Section 34(1)(d) of the Act. This is in contrast to provision of posts for Specific Learning Disability in KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore L RANI2026.05.08 12:38:07+05'30' 7 OA No.170/00464/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Engineering Services Examination 2024, Indian Economic Service/Indian Statistical Service Examination 2025 and Combined Medical Service Examination 2025.
15. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant points out that the Karnataka State Public Service Commission (KPSC) had also similarly failed to earmark 1% of the posts for persons with Specific Learning Disability in its Gazetted Probations Group A & B Posts on 15-07-2017. The Applicant herein approached the Hon'ble High Court at Bangalore by filing WP No 23379 of 2024, which, vide order dated 18-09-2024 allowed the WP and directed the KPSC to reserve the posts to the persons suffering from Specific Learning Disability/intellectual Disability in line with the RPWD Act, 2016.
4. Grounds for Relief The specific grounds for relief have been summarized by the Learned Counsel for the Applicant as follows:
1. Not providing mandatory reservation to persons with Specific Learning Disability (SLD) is illegal and violative of provisions of RPwD Act, 2016.
2. Excluding persons covered by (Clause (d) of Sub Section (1) of Section 34 of the Act, which mandates 1% of reservation to persons with disabilities under Clause (d) of Sec 34(1) of the Act.
3. The Respondents DoPT and UPSC have provided reservation for people with Specific Learning Disability in Central Water Engineering Grade A posts under Indian Engineering Service, Indian Statistical Service and General Duty Medical Officers posts under Combined Medical Service Examination. Not KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore L RANI2026.05.08 12:38:07+05'30' 8 OA No.170/00464/2025/CAT/BANGALORE providing the same for Civil Services Examination is discriminatory and violative of the Applicant's rights as a person with benchmark disability.
4. The Applicant's disability is quantified as 40% learning disability and when persons with similar disability can be allowed to avail reservation and serve the state as engineers, doctors and statisticians, denying the opportunity to the Applicant to serve the state in the Civil Services cadre amounts to discrimination.
5. The roles of Central Water Engineering Grade A posts under Indian Engineering Service, Indian Statistical Service and General Duty Medical Officers posts under Combined Medical Service Examination in the service of the state do not greatly differ from the roles to be performed by officials under the Civil Services. Denying reservation for people with SLD in Civil Service posts is arbitrary, illegal and capricious.
6. The Applicant's learning disability is quantified as 40% and therefore he is eligible for reservation persons with benchmark disability under Section 34(1)(d) of the RPwD Act and denial of the same is arbitrary, illegal and violation of the RPwD Act.
7. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has in its order in WP No 23379 of 2024 directed the Karnataka Public Service Commission to reserve the posts for persons suffering from Specific Learning Disability/intellectual Disability in State Civil Services Posts and not doing the same for Civil Service posts for which the respondents DoPT and UPSC are holding the recruitment exercise, is unreasonable, arbitrary and illegal.
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
L RANI2026.05.08
12:38:07+05'30'
9
OA No.170/00464/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
8. The Applicant's Specific Learning Disability only means that his neurodevelopmental disorder may impact his reading, writing, spelling, or math, and certainly is not a reflection on his aptitude or skills to serve the state in a Civil Service post and therefore the Applicant's disability does not render him ineligible .
9. Civil Service posts calls for average or above-average intelligence and the Applicant's eligibility for the same can be tested in the Civil Service Examinations conducted by the respondent UPSC and the Applicant's Specific Learning Disability in no way is a reflection on his intelligence and capability and therefore the Applicant with 40% benchmark disability is eligible to be considered for a Civil Service post under the RPwD Act.
5. Statement of Reply filed on behalf of Respondent No.2-UPSC The Counsel for Respondent No. 2 has filed his reply. In this reply, he has stated as follows:
1. The UPSC is a Constitutional Body which has been constituted under Article 315-323 Part XIV Chapter II of the Constitution of India to discharge its duties, functions and obligations assigned under Article 320. The UPSC is fully aware and conscious of its responsibilities and accordingly conducts various examinations, including Civil Services Examination, strictly in accordance with the Rules of Examination (as notified by the Government of India (DoP&T)) in a just, fair and impartial manner.
2. The Rules for Civil Services examination, which, inter-alia, contain the conditions of eligibility including provisions relating to functional classification KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore L RANI2026.05.08 12:38:07+05'30' 10 OA No.170/00464/2025/CAT/BANGALORE and physical requirement and reservation of vacancies etc. for various categories are notified by the Government of India (DoP&T). The mandate of the Commission is limited to conduct of examination and to declare the results strictly in accordance with the Rules of Examination framed and notified by the Government of India (Department of Personnel and Training) and to finally recommend candidates as per the vacancies reported by the Government (DoP&T).
3. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents points out that the Reservation to any category of candidate including PwBD candidates is the sole responsibility of Cadre Controlling Authorities (CCAs) in terms of Functional Classification and Physical Requirements (abilities/disabilities) (FC&PR) consistent with requirements of the identified Service/posts as may be prescribed by its Cadre Controlling Authority (CCA) for the candidates belonging to PwBD candidates.
4. The Commission has no role in the identification/reservation of posts for PwBD category in respect of the Services, recruitment to which is to be made through the CSE.
5. The subject matter of the instant O.A i.e. inclusion of Specific Learning Disability (SLD) under clause (d) of Section 34(1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 for purpose of reservation in the Civil Services Examination primarily pertains to Government of India (DoP&T). The matter doesn't fall under the purview of Commission at all, and hence, the Commission KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore L RANI2026.05.08 12:38:07+05'30' 11 OA No.170/00464/2025/CAT/BANGALORE has no role in either determination or inclusion/exclusion of disability categories for the purpose of reservation in the Civil Services Examination.
6. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents avers that the assessment of functional suitability and identification of posts for various disability categories is exclusive responsibility of the Cadre Controlling Authority of the participating Services. The Commission has no mandate to determine the Functional classification and Physical requirements. It is further submitted that different examinations pertain to specific Service(s) which are governed by distinct rules and functional requirements. The fact that reservation has been extended to a particular disability category in a few examinations does not automatically entitle the Petitioner to claim reservation under the Civil Services Examination Rules.
Statement of Reply filed on behalf of Respondent No.1 DoPT The Learned Counsel for the Respondent for DoPT avers that policy making and formulation of Rules and Procedures is the exclusive domain of the Executive. Under the Constitution of India, the domains of the Legislature, Executive and the Judiciary are clearly defined and demarcated. Defending the exclusive authority and sole responsibility of the Executive in the realm of policy making and need for judicial restraint in such matter, the Counsel representing Respondent No. 1, i.e. DoPT places reliance on the following Judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India:
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
L RANI2026.05.08
12:38:07+05'30'
12
OA No.170/00464/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
1. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mallikarjuna Rao and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, Civil Appeal no. 3677 of 1987 decided on 10.04.1990 has held as under:
"13..........The High Courts or the Administrative Tribunals cannot issue a mandate to the State Government to legislate under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The courts cannot usurp the functions assigned to the executive under the Constitution and can- not even indirectly require the executive to exercise its rule making power in any manner. The courts cannot assume to itself a supervisory role over the rule making power of the executive under Article 309 of the Constitution of India."
2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Union of India v. M. Selvakumar, (2017) 3 SCC 504, has clearly held that courts do not interfere with policy decisions unless they are capricious, arbitrary, or violative of constitutional rights. The Court observed that it is not in the domain of the courts to embark upon an inquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise and acceptable or whether a better policy could be evolved. The Court can only interfere if the policy framed is absolutely capricious and non-informed by reasons, or totally arbitrary, offending the basic requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution.
3. Likewise in Rachna v. Union of India, (2021) 5 SCC 638, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that judicial review of a policy decision and issuing directions to frame policy in a particular manner are entirely different. It is within the executive's authority to take policy decisions based on prevailing circumstances. Courts do not have jurisdiction to legislate or dictate policy matters.
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
L RANI2026.05.08
12:38:07+05'30'
13
OA No.170/00464/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
4. In exercise of its extra-ordinary power of judicial review, akin to Article 226 of the Constitution of India, intervention of this Hon'ble Tribunal in the matter is not justified. He avers that the applicant seeks to invoke the power of this Hon'ble Tribunal as Appellate Authority, which is not permissible under law.
5. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents also invites our attention to Rule 25 of the Civil Services Examination (CSE) Rules-2025 annexed as Annexure R-1 which states as under:
"Reservation against vacancies for Persons with Benchmark Disability:
25. The eligibility for availing reservation against the vacancies reserved for the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities shall be the same as prescribed in "The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPWD Act, 2016)", The candidates of Multiple Disabilities will be eligible for reservation under category (e) Multiple Disabilities only of Section 34(1) of RPwD Act, 2016 and shall not be eligible for reservation under any other categories of disabilities i.e. (a) to (d) of Section 34(1) of RPwD Act, 2016 on account of having disability of 40% and above in any of these sub-categories of PwBD.
Provided further that the candidates from Persons with Benchmark Disability category shall also be required to meet special eligibility criteria in terms of 'Suitable Category of Benchmark Disabilities' and 'Functional Requirements' [erstwhile Functional Classification and Physical Requirements (abilities/disabilities) (FC&PR)] consistent with requirements of the identified Service/post as may be prescribed by the Government.
Note-I: The details of 'Suitable Category of Benchmark Disabilities' and 'Functional Requirements of Services participating in CSE-2024 are indicated in Appendix-IV of these Rules which are identified and prescribed by the Government as per the provisions of Section 33 and 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
L RANI2026.05.08
12:38:07+05'30'
14
OA No.170/00464/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
Note-II: Persons with Benchmark Disability with only those category(ies) of disability(ies) mentioned in Appendix-IV shall be eligible to apply for the Examination under PwBD category. Therefore, candidates concerned are advised to read it carefully before applying appropriately for admission to the Examination.
6. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent invites our attention to Section 33 and 34 of the Rights of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which state as under:
"33. 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;
(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.
34. (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 rsons 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;
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
L RANI2026.05.08
12:38:07+05'30'
15
OA No.170/00464/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
(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) ...... 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.
7. The vacancies to be filled up in a Service (including those reserved for SC/ST/OBC/EWS/PwBD) on the basis of a particular CSE is determined by the Cadre Controlling Authority (CCA) of the respective Service. The CCAs also determine the subcategory-wise breakup of vacancies reserved for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) category candidates.
8. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents avers that till CSE-2023, this Respondent's role (DoPT) was limited only to IAS. For other Services, it was KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore L RANI2026.05.08 12:38:07+05'30' 16 OA No.170/00464/2025/CAT/BANGALORE the mandate of respective CCA to identify the category (ies) of disability (ies) which could be considered for appointment to their respective service(s) as per the provisions of RPWD Act, 2016. DoPT's role was limited to compile the Functional Classification (FC) and Physical Requirements (PR) of each sub- category of disability decided to be included by the concerned CCA for their respective service(s) and notify them in Appendix-IV of CSE Rules. Subsequently, an Expert Committee was formed by DoPT (being the nodal Department for CSE) to determine the uniform FC&PR for all participating Services of CSE from 2024 onwards.
9. To ensure uniformity to the extent possible, in FC&PR criteria prescribed for participating Services, DoPT, being the Nodal Department for CSE undertook an exercise to prescribe uniform FC&PR for all the Non-Technical Services as well as IRMS, in consultation with the CCAs and DEPwD prior to notification of Rules for CSE-2024.
10. After detailed deliberations, the Expert Committee has recommended the uniform set of FC&PR criteria for all the non-Technical participating Services and IRMS for CSE-2024. The Committee also deliberated on the issue of inclusion/exclusion of the disabilities defined under category (d) i.e. autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness. The Committee Members recommended that for CSE-2024, the disabilities defined under category (d) of the RPWD Act, 2016, may not be included. After approval of the Competent Authority, the same was conveyed to the participating CCAs vide O.M. dated 17.11.2023 and the same was notified in the Appendix-IV of CSE Rules-2024.
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
L RANI2026.05.08
12:38:07+05'30'
17
OA No.170/00464/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
11. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent points out that DEPwD vide its OM No. 05-43/2023-DD-III dated 10.11.2023 had conveyed its concurrence on the uniform set of FC&PR criteria as recommended by the Expert Committee vide Annexure R-3.
12. DoPT undertook a fresh 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 and constituted another Expert Committee.
13. After detailed deliberations, the new Expert Committee also recommended 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 of his work done in consultation with the Cadre Controlling Authorities and DEPwD as per the provisions under Section 33 and 34 of the RPWD Act, 2016. These recommendations are applicable to CSE for three years, i.e., CSE-2025, CSE-2026 and CSE-2027, on the lines of CSE-2024. It also recommended 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."
14. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents points out that it is pertinent to mention that DEPwD vide its O.M. No. 02-43/2023-DD-III dated 20.12.2024 conveyed its concurrence on the recommendations of the Expert Committee of DoPT to continue with the current Suitable Category of Benchmark Disabilities KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore L RANI2026.05.08 12:38:07+05'30' 18 OA No.170/00464/2025/CAT/BANGALORE 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. A copy of the O.M. dated 20.12.2024 is at Annexure R-4.
15. After approval of the Competent Authority, the same was conveyed to the participating CCAs vide O.M. dated 01.01.2025 and was notified in the Appendix-IV of CSE Rules-2025.
16. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents avers that DoPT has already taken all the necessary steps which were required for the effective implementation of the provisions of RPWD Act, 2016 and Rules, 2017 in letter and spirit in a time bound manner for the Civil Services Examination-2024, 2025 and has notified the Rules accordingly.
17. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent concludes by stating that as there has been no departure/deviation from the existing precedents and laid down rules and procedures regarding the vacancy position in the Notice for CSE- 2024, 2025 and as it does not suffer from any irregularity / illegality as alleged by the applicant, the OA may be dismissed.
6. Rejoinder In response to the above replies of the Learned Counsel for Respondents I and II, the Learned Counsel for the Applicant has filed a Rejoinder.
1. According to Learned Counsel for the applicant the statements made in the Counter Affidavit of the Respondent No 1 are misleading and there is suppression of material facts.
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
L RANI2026.05.08
12:38:07+05'30'
19
OA No.170/00464/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
2. The Learned Counsel for the applicant avers that the Applicant uploaded the Application, clearly disclosing his disability status in the Application, that too specifically mentioning "SLD" and the Respondent (UPSC) had given him extra time and also a Scribe to write the exam. After having permitted him, the Respondent cannot deny and deprive the Applicant of his right. The Applicant also cleared the Prelims exam in which the UPSC put him in the Un Reserved Category. By that yardstick, the Applicant has met the PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS and FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION for the Civil Services posts.
3. She states that reliance by Learned Counsel for the Respondent on the Judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mallikarjuna Rao and Ors vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Others is totally wrong. The said Judgement is not applicable to the case of the Applicant. The facts and circumstances and the legal position of the said judgement are different from the case of the applicant.
4. She argues that the Judgements in the case of Union of India v M Selvakumar and Rachna v UoI are also not applicable to the case on hand. She asserts that the Policy decisions of Executive cannot override a Statute that too a special Statute like RPwD Act passed by the Parliament, the highest law making body of the Nation. The Policy decisions are subordinate to Acts enacted by the Parliament. The Policy should conform to the Statute and cannot be arbitrary and capricious.
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
L RANI2026.05.08
12:38:07+05'30'
20
OA No.170/00464/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
5. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant further avers that the 1st Respondent has suppressed the material facts regarding the Judgement of the Hon'ble CAT, New Delhi in OA No 3553/2024, dated 25-9-2025.
6. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant has specifically invited our attention to the certain portions of the Judgement of CAT, Principal Bench in OA No. 3553 of 2024 (Between Molshree Aggrawal & Anr Vs. Union of India & Others) during the course of arguments in the Court "................................
2.8 Learned Counsel further submitted that the prejudice is not merely theoretical. The applicants' academic and professional achievements establish 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.
...............
2.10......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 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.
..................
3.9............The OM dated 17.11.2023 is reproduced as under:-
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
L RANI2026.05.08
12:38:07+05'30'
21
OA No.170/00464/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
"Sub: Approved uniform set of Functional Classification and Physical Requirements (FC&PR) criteria for the participating Services of the Civil Services Examination (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, 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:
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:
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
L RANI2026.05.08
12:38:07+05'30'
22
OA No.170/00464/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
Category(ies) Functional Physical
for which Classification Requirements (To
identified (To be suitable be functional
category of requirements)
Benchmark
Disabilities)
(i) Locomotor OA, OL, BA, S, SE, H, RW, C
Disability OAL, BLA,
including BLOA, BL,
cerebral palsy, BAOL, SD, SI,
leprosy cured, CP, LC, Dw,
dwarfism, acid AAV, MDy
attack victims
and muscular
dystrophy
(ii) Blindness LV, B MF, PP J S, ST,
and low vision W, L, C, RW
(including in
braille/software),
H, KC, BN
(iii) Deaf and D, HH MF, PP, S, ST, W,
Hard of L, C, RW, KC, BN
Hearing
(iv) Multiple Any S, RW (including
disability from combination of in
amongst only FCs from braille/software),
above three different C
categories categories as
allowed under
(i) to (iii),
except the
combination of
blind & deaf
(B+D)
List of abbreviations used:
OA-One Arm
ST-Standing
OL-One Leg
BA- Both Arms
OAL-One Arm and one Leg
BLA-Both legs and both arms
BLOA- Both legs and one arm
BL-Both legs
BAOL-Both arms and one leg
SD- Spinal deformity
SI-Spinal Injury
CP-Cerebral palsy
LC-Leprosy Cured
DW-Dwarfism
AV-Acid attack victim
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
L RANI2026.05.08
12:38:07+05'30'
23
OA No.170/00464/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
MDy-Muscular Dystrophy
LV-Low vision
B-Blind
D-Deaf
HH-Hard of Hearing
MD-Multiple Disabilities
W-Walking
SE-Seeking
H-Hearing
RW-Reading and writing
C-Communication
MF- Manipulation with fingers
PP-Pulling and pushing
L-Lifting
KC-Kneeling and crouching
BN- Bending
JU-Jumping
CL-Climbing
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 [ie., autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness] may be reviewed with involvement of experts on the subject.
............................
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) KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore L RANI2026.05.08 12:38:07+05'30' 24 OA No.170/00464/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
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 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 including the Requirements criteria, 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. Likewise, she has highlighted the following in MA No. 137 of 2026 in this OA ".........................
4. The Respondent -UPSC has published the marks of the Mains Exam and also cut off of all categories of PwBD particularly PwBD
-5. Under the mandatory provision of Section 34 of the RPWD Act 2016, the Applicant is entitled for reservation under Clause (d) of the said Section. Clause (d) and (e) provide for 1% of reservation. However, the SLD which comes under Clause (d) is not provided with reservation. Since the Applicant qualified in the Prelims exam and wrote the Mains Exam under the GM category. He has not qualified under the said category. However, he has obtained 648 in the Mains Exam. The marks obtained by him in the Mains Exam are more than KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore L RANI2026.05.08 12:38:07+05'30' 25 OA No.170/00464/2025/CAT/BANGALORE the cut off fixed for the PwBD -5 category l.e Clause (e) of Section 34 (1) of the Act.
......................
Min Qualifying Marks CSE 2025 (Annexure MA-2) In the Civil Services Examination 2025, the minium qualifying standards/marks secured by the last recommended candidate in various categories at various stages are as under:
Exami Gene E O S S P P P P
nation ral W B C T w w w w
S C B B B B
D D D D
- - - -
1 2 3 5
CS 92.66 8 9 8 8 7 5 4 4
(Preli 9 2 4 2 6 4 0 0
m) . . . . . . . .
3 0 0 6 6 6 6 6
4 0 0 6 6 6 6 6
CS(Ma 739 7 7 7 6 7 7 5 4
ins) 0 1 0 9 0 0 3 5
6 7 0 4 3 8 6 1
CS(Fin 963 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 6
al) 2 3 0 0 1 4 0 3
6 1 5 2 7 4 4 1
7. Conclusion:
1. We have given thoughtful consideration to the averments and arguments of the learned Counsel for the applicant and the respondents. We have also carefully gone through all the documents and records including the relevant sections and clauses of the departmental rules etc, and judgement of the Higher Courts which were brought on record by the respective Counsels.
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
L RANI2026.05.08
12:38:07+05'30'
26
OA No.170/00464/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
2. It would be useful to revisit the relevant Sections of the RPWD Act, 2016 and also various OMs issued by the DoPT and the Orders of the Hon'ble CAT, Principal Bench in OA No 3553/2024, dated 25-9-2025 (Between Molshree Aggrawal & Anr Vs. Union of India & Others) and of the Judgement of High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 2308/2026, CM APPL. 11079/2026 and CM APPL. 11080/2026 dated 18.02.2026 (Between Union of India & Others Vs. Molshree Aggrawal & Anr) etc.
3. Rule 25 of the Civil Services Examination, the Proviso to Rule 25 of the Civil Services Examination 2025 which is annexed as Annexure R-1 is extracted as below:
Provided further that the candidates from Persons with C Benchmark Disability category shall also be required to meet special eligibility criteria in terms of 'Suitable Category of Benchmark Disabilities' and 'Functional Requirements [erstwhile Functional Classification and Physical Requirements (abilities/disabilities) (FC&PR)] consistent with requirements of the identified Service/post as may be prescribed by the Government.
4. Section 33 (ii) and (iii) of RPWD Act, 2016 states as follows:
(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.
5. Subsequently the Provisos to 34 (1) and 34 (2) states as follows:
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 KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore L RANI2026.05.08 12:38:07+05'30' 27 OA No.170/00464/2025/CAT/BANGALORE conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notifications exempt any Government establishment from the provisions of this section. ......................
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.
6. From the above provisions of the RPWD Act, it is very clear that the Government has every right to provide exemptions to Government establishments from the provisions of Section 34 of the Act after following the due process. The due process involves formation of an Expert Committee which looks into the issue of Functional Classification and Physical Requirements (FC&PR), which should be consistent with the requirement of the identified Services/Post. It is seen that an Expert Committee was indeed constituted in this regard which submitted its report to the Competent Authority (DEPwD) which gave its approval/concurrence to the recommendations of the Expert Committee vide OM No. 05-43/2023-DD-III dated 10.11.2023. On receipt of the same by DoPT which is Respondent No. 1, it issued the approved uniform set of Functional Classification and Physical Requirements (FC&PR) criteria for the participating Services of the Civil Services Examination vide No. 13018/04/2023-AIS-I dated 17.11.2023.
7. Subsequent to it, another Expert Committee was constituted which had detailed deliberations on 13.11.2024 and in consultation with the Cadre Controlling Authorities (CCAs) and DEPwD and factoring for FC&PR, recommended continuation of the earlier recommendations for three years i.e. KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore L RANI2026.05.08 12:38:07+05'30' 28 OA No.170/00464/2025/CAT/BANGALORE CSE 2025, CSE 2026, and CSE 2027. It is seen that the same also met the approval of DEPwD vide OM No. 05-43/2023-DD-III dated 20.12.2024 (Annexure R-4). Same is reproduced below for easy reference:
No. 05-43/2023-DD-III Government of India Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan) Date: 20th December, 2024 Office Memorandum Sub: Suitable category of Benchmark Disabilities and Functional Requirements criteria for the participating services of the Civil Services Examinations-reg.
The undersigned is directed to refer to DoPT's OM dated 02.12.2024 on the subject mentioned above, and to convey the concurrence of DEPWD 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.
Debala Bhattacharjee Under Secretary to the Government of India
8. This OM was accordingly conveyed to all the CCAs vide OM dated 01.01.2025 which is truthfully reflected in the notification (Appendix-IV of CSE Rules 2025).
9. Thus from the above, it is very clear that the Respondents have strictly and scrupulously adhered to the relevant provisions (Section 33 and 34 of RPWD Act, 2016) and these exemptions related to Special Benchmark Disabilities have been approved by DEPwD itself, keeping in mind FC&PR.
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
L RANI2026.05.08
12:38:07+05'30'
29
OA No.170/00464/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
10. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant has repeatedly invited our attention to the observation made in the Judgement of C.A.T., PB in OA No 3553/2024, dated 25-9-2025. It is a fact that in this Judgement, the Principal Bench of Hon'ble C.A.T. has dwelt upon at great length on the Notification issued by the UPSC, the recommendations of the Expert Committee and the OMs issued by the DoPT. It can also not be denied that the Hon'ble C.A.T. have made certain strong observations, and have expressed concern regarding a few issued pertaining to strict adherence to Section 34 of the RPwD Act, 2016. Some of the issues on which the Principal Bench of Hon'ble C.A.T. has made certain observations are stated as below:
(a) Involvement of Subject Matter Experts in the constitution of the Expert Committee which is required to look into identification of post for persons with benchmark disabilities as per Section 33 (2) of the RPWD Act, 2016.
(b) Long standing need for a National Policy on learning disabilities to be framed by the Ministry of Education for identification of suitable posts and services to ensure compliance with Section 34 (d) of RPWD Act, 2016 for CSE.
(c) Involvement of certified Psychologists with expertise in learning disabilities for providing expert opinion on Service/post specific exemption in CSE.
(d) Data-driven evaluations for examining feasibility of creating suitable post for SLD candidates across different Services.
(e) Whether OM dated 24.12.2024 violates the principle of non-
discrimination while providing exemption from Section 34 (d).
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
L RANI2026.05.08
12:38:07+05'30'
30
OA No.170/00464/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
(f) Whether the Right or Power to seek exemption through an OM nullifies
the Statutory Rights of persons with benchmark disabilities.
(g) Whether granting exemption for three consecutive years can be considered to be sweeping in nature.
11. However, despite highlighting the above issues, the fact remains that after consideration of all pros and cons, and in final analysis the Principal Bench of Hon'ble C.A.T., eventually issued the following Orders:
"...........................
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 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 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.
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
L RANI2026.05.08
12:38:07+05'30'
31
OA No.170/00464/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
(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.
......................."
12. It is equally pertinent to note that this Judgement of Hon'ble C.A.T. was upheld by the High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) 2308/2026, CM APPL. 11079/2026 and CM APPL. 11080/2026 dated 18.02.2026 between Union and India & Ors Vs. Molshree Aggarwal & Anr. Its relevant portions are as under:
"..................
2. The O.A. before the CAT was filed by the Respondents seeking implementation of reservation for persons with disabilities strictly in terms of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which provides for reservation of not less than four per cent in the vacancies in Government establishments for such persons.
3. Since the Tribunal has only directed reconsideration of the matter in consultation with the concerned experts, no ground for interference is made out.
4. However, the Tribunal had directed completion of the aforesaid exercise within a period of twelve weeks. The said period has admittedly expired. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, an additional period of eight weeks from today is granted to the Petitioners to complete the exercise in terms of the directions of the Tribunal.
5. In view of the aforesaid, the present Writ Petition along with pending applications, is disposed of."
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
L RANI2026.05.08
12:38:07+05'30'
32
OA No.170/00464/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
13. As cited supra, the facts and circumstances of this case are exactly the same as has already been dealt with by the Principal Bench of C.A.T. in OA No. 3553 of 2024 dated 25.09.2025 (upheld by High Court of Delhi in WP No. 2308/2026 dated 18.02.2026). It is a well settled principle that if a case is exactly identical in terms of facts and circumstances and law to a case earlier decided upon, the Judgement should also be similar to that of the Coordinate Bench. In this regard it would be beneficial to visit the relevant portions of the following Judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
(i) Judgement of Supreme Court in S.I. Rooplal and Anr Vs. Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary reported in (2000) 1 SCC 644 vide Civil Appeal No. 5363-64 of 1997 dated 14.12.1999:
"...................................
11. Before us in these matters, Mr. P.P. Rao and Mr. S.K. Dholakia, learned senior counsel appearing for the parties contended that the latter Bench of the tribunal committed a judicial impropriety in taking a contra view from the earlier judgment without following the rule of precedent.........
12. At the outset, we must express our serious dissatisfaction in regard to the manner in which a coordinate Bench of the tribunal has overruled, in effect, an earlier judgment of another coordinate Bench of the same tribunal. This is opposed to all principles of judicial discipline. If at all, the subsequent Bench of the tribunal was of the opinion that the earlier view taken by the coordinate Bench of the same tribunal was incorrect, it ought to have referred the matter to a larger Bench so that the the same point could have been avoided. It is not as if the latter Bench was unaware of the judgment of the earlier Bench but knowingly it proceeded to disagree with the said judgment KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore L RANI2026.05.08 12:38:07+05'30' 33 OA No.170/00464/2025/CAT/BANGALORE against all known rules of precedents. Precedents which enunciate rules of law from the foundation of administration of justice under our system. This is a fundamental principle which every Presiding Officer of a Judicial Forum ought to know, for consistency in interpretation of law alone can lead to public confidence in our judicial system. This Court has laid down time and again precedent law must be followed by all concerned; deviation from the same should be only on a procedure known to law. A subordinate court is bounded by the enunciation of law made by the superior courts. A coordinate Bench of a Court cannot pronounce judgment contrary to declaration of law made by another Bench. It can only refer it to a larger Bench if it disagrees with the earlier pronouncement. This Court in the case of Tribhuvandas Purshottamdas Thakar v. Ratilal Motilal Patel, [1968] 1 SCR 455 while dealing with a case in which a Judge of the High Court had failed to follow the earlier judgment of a larger Bench of S.I. Rooplal And Anr vs Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary... on 14 December, 1999 the same court observed thus:
"The judgment of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court was binding upon Raju, J. If the learned Judge was of the view that the decision of Bhagwati, J., in Pinjare Karimbhai's case and of Macleod, C.J., in Haridas 's case did not lay down the correct Law or rule of practice, it was open to him to recommend to the Chief Justice that the question be considered by a larger Bench. Judicial decorum, propriety and discipline required that he should not ignore it Our system of administration of justice aims at certainty in the law and that can be achieved only if Judges do not ignore decisions by Courts of coordinate authority or of superior authority. Gajendragadkar, C.J. observed in Lala Shri Bhagwan and Anr, v. Shri Ram Chand and Anr.
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
L RANI2026.05.08
12:38:07+05'30'
34
OA No.170/00464/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
"It is hardly necessary to emphasis that considerations of judicial propriety and decorum require that if a learned single Judge hearing a matter is inclined to take the view that the earlier decisions of the High Court, whether of a Division Bench or of a single Judge, need to be re- considered, lie should not embark upon that enquiry sitting as a single Judge, but should refer the matter to a Division Bench, or, in a proper case, place the relevant papers before the Chief Justice to enable him to constitute a larger Bench to examine the question. That is the proper and traditional way to deal with such matters and it is founded on healthy principles of judicial decorum and propriety."
13. We are indeed sorry to note the attitude of the tribunal in this case which, after noticing the earlier judgment of a coordinate Bench and after noticing the judgment of this Court, has still thought it fit to proceed to take a view totally contrary to the view taken in the earlier judgment thereby creating a judicial uncertainty in regard to the declaration of law involved in this case. Because of this approach of the latter Bench of the tribunal in this case, a lot of valuable time of the Court is wasted and parties to this case have been put to considerable hardship.
.........................."
(ii) Judgement of Supreme Court in Sant Lal Gupta & Ors vs Modern Coop. G.H. Society Ltd. & Ors reported in (2010) 13 SCC 336 vide Civil Appeal No. 9439 of 2003 dated 18.10.2010:
".............
17. A coordinate bench cannot comment upon the discretion exercised or judgment rendered by another coordinate bench of the KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore L RANI2026.05.08 12:38:07+05'30' 35 OA No.170/00464/2025/CAT/BANGALORE same court. The rule of precedent is binding for the reason that there is a desire to secure uniformity and certainty in law. Thus, in judicial administration precedents which enunciate rules of law form the foundation of the administration of justice under our system.
Therefore, it has always been insisted that the decision of a coordinate bench must be followed. (Vide: Tribhovandas Purshottamdas Thakkar v. Ratilal Motilal Patel & Ors., AIR 1968 SC 372; Sub-Committee of Judicial Accountability v. Union of India & Ors., (1992) 4 SCC 97; and State of Tripura v. Tripura Bar Association & Ors., (1998) 5 SCC 637).
18. In Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Anr. v. Harish Kumar Purohit & Ors., (2003) 5 SCC 480, this Court held that a bench must follow the decision of a coordinate bench and take the same view as has been taken earlier. The earlier decision of the coordinate bench is binding upon any latter coordinate bench deciding the same or similar issues. If the latter bench wants to take a different view than that taken by the earlier bench, the proper course is for it to refer the matter to a larger bench......."
14. It is seen that the relief asked for by the applicant with respect to inclusion of persons with SLD for CSE Examination 2025 in this OA has already become infructuous. Presently, the Selection Process for CSE 2026 is going on. The Hon'ble High Court, while upholding the Judgement of Principal Bench of C.A.T in W.P. (C) No. 2308/2026, CM APPL. 11079/2026 and CM APPL. 11080/2026 dated 18.02.2026 (Between Union of India & Others Vs. Molshree Aggrawal & Anr) had granted eight weeks additional to the Respondents to comply with the Orders of Principal Bench of C.A.T. KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore L RANI2026.05.08 12:38:07+05'30' 36 OA No.170/00464/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Accordingly, the Orders should have been complied with, latest by 15.04.2026, which has also lapsed.
15. However, the Learned Counsel for the Respondents during the course of the arguments in the Court have repeatedly assured us that Respondent No. 1 i.e. DoPT is seized of the matter with all seriousness. The Respondents are having extensive consultations with Cadre Controlling Authorities and are actively involved in the process of implementation of the Orders of the Principal Bench of Hon'ble C.A.T and that of the High Court of Delhi. He has further stated that since it is a very sensitive and complex matter with far reaching implications, it is taking some time.
16. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is hereby ordered:
(i) The case is dismissed on grounds of being infructuous as the entire process related to CSE-2025 has already been fully completed and the results have been declared.
(ii) All MAs, if any, stand disposed off.
(iii) No costs!
Sd/- Sd/-
(SANTOSH MEHRA) (JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
kr
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
L RANI2026.05.08
12:38:07+05'30'