Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Khushbu Kumari vs Delhi Development Authority on 14 May, 2026
1
Item No. 76 O.A. No. 4784/2025
Court No. IV
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 4784/2025
Reserved on : 04.05.2026
Pronounced on: 14.05.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
Khushbu Kumari,
Aged about 28 years
W/o Shri Rajesh Kumar Sharma
R/o D-8, Sanskriti Apartment,
Tower No.1, Burari, Delhi-110084
Phone No.9718159972
E Mail: [email protected]
...Applicant
(By Advocates: Mr. S K Rungta, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Prashant
Singh)
Versus
Delhi Development Authority
Through its Vice Chairman
Having its office at
INA, Vikas Sadan,
New Delhi
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Arun Birbal)
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAK 15
10:39:39
LANI +05'30'
2
Item No. 76 O.A. No. 4784/2025
Court No. IV
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
In the present Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"In view of the above it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to:-
b) Allow this application.
c) Set aside the impugned communication dt.7.5.2025 rejecting the candidature of the applicant after her selection to the post of Assistant Section officer and consequently direct the respondent to appoint the.
applicant to the post of Assistant Section officer on the basis of her merit and selection pursuant to advertisement dt.3.6.2023 with all consequential benefits including seniority by further directing the respondent to treat her appointment to the said post from the date when the first candidate to the said post in the subject selection process was offered appointment.
d) Grant any other relief which Your Lordship deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
e) Award the cost."
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned senior counsel for the applicant submitted that the present Original Application has been filed challenging the impugned communication dated 07.05.2025 whereby the candidature of the applicant for the post of Assistant Section Officer, pursuant to Advertisement No. 02/2023/Rectt. Cell/Pers./DDA dated 03.06.2023, was cancelled after she had successfully participated in the selection process and completed all requisite formalities.
2.1. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the applicant is a visually impaired candidate and, therefore, entitled to avail the facility of a scribe in terms of the guidelines issued by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPwD) vide Office Memorandum dated 29.08.2018. Learned counsel contended that the applicant had opted to engage her own scribe strictly in accordance with the said guidelines and the ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:39 LANI +05'30' 3 Item No. 76 O.A. No. 4784/2025 Court No. IV qualification of the scribe, namely a graduate candidate, was one step below the qualification of the applicant, who had completed her post-graduation at the relevant time.
2.2. Learned senior counsel contended that the respondents have wrongly construed the applicable guidelines by comparing the qualification of the applicant and the scribe as on the date of advertisement instead of the date of examination and have failed to point out any specific violation attributable to the applicant.
2.3. Concluding the arguments, learned senior counsel submitted that the impugned cancellation order is non-speaking, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the applicant prior to cancellation of her candidature. Learned counsel added that the impugned action is contrary to the binding guidelines governing use of scribes and also infringes the rights guaranteed to persons with benchmark disabilities under the applicable policy framework, thereby compelling the applicant to approach this Tribunal seeking quashing of the impugned communication and issuance of directions to the respondents to appoint her to the post of Assistant Section Officer with all consequential benefits, including seniority and notional appointment from the date similarly situated selected candidates were appointed. 2.4. Learned senior counsel placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W. P.(C) No. 1018/2022 titled Gulshan Kumar vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection & Ors.
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the present Original Application is devoid of merit and liable ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:39 LANI +05'30' 4 Item No. 76 O.A. No. 4784/2025 Court No. IV to be dismissed as the candidature of the applicant was rightly cancelled in accordance with the terms and conditions of Advertisement No. 02/2023/Rectt. Cell/Pers./DDA and the applicable guidelines governing use of scribes by PwBD candidates.
3.1. Learned counsel contended that although the applicant, being a visually impaired candidate, was entitled to avail the facility of a scribe, the same was subject to the mandatory condition contained in Para 2.11.6 of the recruitment notification and the Office Memorandum dated 29.08.2018 issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, which specifically required that where a candidate opts to engage her own scribe, the qualification of the scribe must be one step below the qualification of the candidate taking the examination. It was submitted that the applicant possessed a Bachelor's Degree on the crucial date i.e. the closing date for submission of applications, namely 02.07.2023, whereas the scribe engaged by her was also a graduate, thereby rendering both qualifications equivalent and in violation of the prescribed criteria. 3.2. Learned counsel argued that the applicant's subsequent acquisition/declaration of post-graduate qualification after the relevant cut- off date is wholly irrelevant for determining eligibility and compliance with the scribe guidelines.
3.3. Learned counsel further argued that the applicant was duly informed regarding the deficiency during document verification held on 21.01.2025 and that the impugned action was taken strictly in terms of the recruitment rules and applicable instructions to ensure fairness and integrity in the examination process. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that no ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:39 LANI +05'30' 5 Item No. 76 O.A. No. 4784/2025 Court No. IV arbitrariness, illegality or violation of principles of natural justice can be attributed to the respondents and, accordingly, the OA deserves to be dismissed.
4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
5. ANALYSIS :
5.1 The core issue which arises for consideration before this Tribunal is whether the applicant satisfied the prescribed conditions for availing the facility of a scribe, particularly with regard to the educational qualification of the scribe as stipulated under the recruitment advertisement and the applicable guidelines issued by the DoP&T. An ancillary issue that also falls for determination is the relevant or crucial date for assessing the educational qualification of the candidate as well as the scribe for the purpose of compliance with the said conditions.
5.2 It is not in dispute between the parties that:
(a) the applicant belongs to the PwBD category (Visually Impaired) and had availed the facility of a scribe during the examination process;
(b) as on the closing date for submission of applications, i.e., 02.07.2023, the applicant possessed the educational qualification of Graduation (B.A.).
Though the applicant had already undertaken her post-graduation course, the result thereof had not been declared by the said date and came to be declared only towards the end of July, 2023;
(c) the second-stage examination was conducted on 28.09.2024. The scribe engaged by the applicant was also a graduate, namely B.A. (Hons.) in ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:39 LANI +05'30' 6 Item No. 76 O.A. No. 4784/2025 Court No. IV Economics. It is further borne out from the record that, at the time of the examination, both the applicant and the scribe furnished a declaration in the prescribed format to the following effect:-
5.3. The letter of undertaking furnished by the applicant for using own scribe is reproduced below:
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:39 LANI +05'30' 7 Item No. 76 O.A. No. 4784/2025 Court No. IV 5.4. It is not disputed that the applicant is a visually impaired candidate and was otherwise eligible for appointment to the post in question. It is also not in dispute that the applicant had disclosed the details of the scribe at the relevant stage and that the alleged deficiency was noticed only at the time of document verification, after the completion of the entire selection process.
5.5. As per Clause 2.11.6 of the recruitment notification and the applicable DoPT guidelines, where a candidate is permitted to bring her own scribe, the educational qualification of the scribe must be one step below that of the candidate appearing in the examination. This condition is mandatory and leaves no scope for relaxation or interpretation. Para 2.11.6 of the notification reads as follows:-
"2.11. 6 In case the candidate is allowed to bring his own scribe, the qualification of the scribe should be one step below the qualification of the candidate taking examination and that scribe should not be a candidate of this examination ........................... .
If subsequently it is found that the qualification of the scribe is not as declared by the candidate, then the candidate shall forfeit his/ her right to the post and claims relating thereto."
(Emphasis added).
5.6 In Writ Petition (Civil) No 1109 of 2022 - Arnab Roy Versus Consortium of National Law Universities & Anr decided on 17.03.2023, the Apex court observed as under:-
"In this backdrop, it is necessary, in order to maintain the integrity and sanctity of the examination, that the scribe does not provide independent answers to the MCQs based on their own knowledge or experience and hence the twofold restriction has been imposed. Moreover, it has been submitted that in any event, if a candidate has any difficult in engaging a scribe, the Consortium is ready and willing to provide a scribe so that the candidate is not prevented from appearing for the entrance test. The affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the Consortium indicates that at the CLAT which was conducted on 18 December 2022, 292 candidates belonged to the PwD category. Of these candidates 211 appeared for the under graduateCLAT while 81 candidates appeared for the post graduate-CLAT. 49 candidates brought their own scribe. There were 33 requests for providing additional accommodation including 16 requests for the provision of a scribe. TheConsortium provided a scribe in 15 instances whereas one candidate withdrew the request for a scribe.
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:39 LANI +05'30' 8 Item No. 76 O.A. No. 4784/2025 Court No. IV In a situation such as the present, the Court must have due regard, undoubtedly to the need for reasonable accommodation consistent with the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, as interpreted in the decision in Vikash Kumar (supra). Equally, it would not be appropriate to ignore the genuine concerns which have been set up on behalf of the Consortium bearing on the need to maintain the integrity of the entrance test.
It is from this perspective that the consortium has, in its guidelines, required that the candidate should not be above the 11th standard and, in addition, should not be affiliated with any test-preparatory or examination coaching centre. At the highest, a candidate could have a grievance if no such scribe meeting the said description is available. But as already noted above, the Consortium has taken upon itself the obligation to provide a scribe who meets with the stipulations which are contained in the Guidelines.
In other words, candidates appearing for the CLAT can either bring their own scribe or if it is not possible to do so, request the Consortium to provide a scribe who is then made available to the candidate. During the course of the hearing, it has been agreed that where the Consortium provides a scribe, at least two days' time should be provided so as to enable the candidate to interact with the scribe.
We are of the view that this is fair and proper. The scribe is required in the case of a visually challenged candidate to read out and write the responses to the MCQs. In order to familiarise the scribe and the aspirant candidate, it is but proper that sufficient time for interaction of two days should be provided. The guidelines also make a similar stipulation. We, therefore, allow the request of the Consortium to the extent of its assertion that the scribe who is selected should not be qualified above the 11th standard and should not be associated with any test-preparatory organisation or examination coaching centre.
The nature and contents of the Guidelines cannot be frozen for the future. The Consortium would be at liberty to modify the Guidelines bearing in mind the exigencies of the situation and the constantly evolving nature of the knowledge and experience gained in conducting CLAT particularly in the context of the rights of PwD candidates. In the event that any further difficulties are encountered by PwD candidates, those may be brought to the notice of the Consortium well in advance so that suitable remedial measures can be taken consistent with their statutory entitlements. The Writ Petition and the Miscellaneous Application are accordingly disposed of."
5.7 In Writ Petition No. 9346 of 2024, titled Rohit Vishnu Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Social Welfare and Justice Department, decided on 22.08.2024 by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, it was observed as under:-
"Courts in 2025 interpret the UNCRPD to mean that "reasonable accommodation" must be provided without compromising the competitive ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:39 LANI +05'30' 9 Item No. 76 O.A. No. 4784/2025 Court No. IV integrity of the exam. If a scribe is more educated than the candidate, it is viewed as a threat to the fairness of the competition for other candidates.
15. The condition of the scribe having an educational qualification 'one step below', is also used in the Office Memorandum dated 10 August 2022 and by various other Authorities and Institutions. In this Petition, there is no challenge to the stipulation that the scribe must have an education qualification 'one step below' below the minimum education qualification for the post. The only debate before us is the manner of applicability of the said stipulation. The object of the scribe is to assist the candidate to be informed of the questions and communicate the answers. It is in that context the concept of 'one step below' has been introduced to maintain the integrity of the examination. The decison to allow only those scribes who have qualifications one step below, is a deliberate policy choice. It serves the dual purpose of extending reasonable accommodation to the persons with disabilities, while maintaining the integrity of the recruitment process.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikash Kumar had directed the framing of regulations. What should be the qualification of a scribe is a matter of regulation. These Guidelines have been in force since 2021. The Guidelines of 2021 provide the same standard for the scribe provided by MPSC and the candidate's own scribe. A minimum qualification of 10th standard is provided. While interpreting the condition, MPSC has followed the educational pattern of 10+2+3, that is: SSC (10), HSC (12) and Graduate degree. This criteria adopted by the MPSC for interpreting the phrase 'one step below' for graduate candidates as 12th standard is neither violative of any statutory provision nor is absurd. Even in Clause- 6, while referring to the minimum qualification of the scribe, a reference is made to 10th Standard. The interpretation of MPSC is not logical and in consonance with the established educational framework. The educational system follows a well-recognized hierarchy of Secondary School Certificate (SSC), Higher Secondary Certificate (HSC), and then a degree at the graduate level. In many cases, SSC, HSC, and degree are specified as qualifications for certain posts. The SSC, HSC and Degree are settled phrases used as steps. Therefore in the context of a degree, the immediately preceding qualification of HSC would logically be considered "one step below," just as SSC would be considered "one step below" HSC.
This interpretation is consistent with the common understanding of the educational framework. We, therefore, agree with the contention of the MPSC that interpreting the phrase 'one step below' with reference to the 10+2+3 pattern will bring certainty and avoid any confusion. However, we need to place a caveat. Though we find that the stand of MPSC of interpreting the phrase 'one step below' is correct, this stipulation is to be treated as a basic norm, but not an inflexible position. That is because the concept of reasonable accommodation cannot be fixed in rigid formulas and can differ from case to case depending on the circumstances. However, the candidate will have to make out a strong case as to why this basic norm needs to be deviated from in his case and how the position is inequitable, failing which this basic norm must govern. This decision will have to be left to the authorities to take on due consideration."
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:39 LANI +05'30' 10 Item No. 76 O.A. No. 4784/2025 Court No. IV 5.8 In Writ Petition (C) No(s). 206 of 2025, titled Mission Accessibility versus Union of India & Ors., decided on 03.12.2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
" 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the additional affidavit dated 12th September, 2025 as well as the other materials placed on record by respondent No. 2-UPSC, this Court is of the considered view that a substantial part of the grievances raised in the present writ petition stand duly alleviated. Respondent No. 2-UPSC has now taken a conscious progressive decision to extend the facility of Screen Reader Software to visually impaired candidates in various examinations to be conducted by it, thereby recognising and advancing the rights of candidates with disabilities to equal opportunity and accessibility in public examinations.
10. However, it is equally evident that while the policy decision has been taken, the mechanism and modalities for its effective implementation remain to be streamlined and operationalised. Respondent No. 2-UPSC's dependence upon external infrastructure and manpower, coupled with the absence of a clearly delineated roadmap or timeline for establishing the requisite technological framework across examination centres, underscores the need for institutional coordination and phased execution. This Court, therefore, finds it imperative that the creases in the process for implementation be duly ironed out through concrete planning, inter- agency collaboration, and the establishment of uniform standards, so as to ensure that the laudable objective of accessibility does not remain confined to paper but is translated into practical reality in forthcoming examination cycles.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion and in order to ensure that the decision taken by respondent No. 2-UPSC is effectively translated into action and the rights of candidates belonging to the PwBD/PwD category are fully safeguarded, the following directions are issued to take the matter to its logical conclusion: -
A. Respondent No. 2-UPSC shall ensure that in every notification for the examinations conducted by it, a clear provision is incorporated permitting candidates eligible for a scribe to request a change of scribe up to at least seven days prior to the date of the examination, and such requests shall be objectively considered and disposed of by a reasoned order within three working days of receipt of the application.
B. Respondent No. 2-UPSC shall file a comprehensive compliance affidavit within a period of two months from the date of this order, clearly delineating the proposed plan of action, timeline, and modalities for the deployment and use of Screen Reader Software for visually impaired candidates in the examinations to be conducted by it. The affidavit shall also specify the steps proposed for testing, standardisation, and validation of the software and related infrastructure across all or designated examination centres, and shall further indicate the feasibility of ensuring that the said facility is made operational and available to all eligible candidates from the next cycle of examinations. C. Respondent No. 2-UPSC shall, in coordination with the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPwD) and the National Institute for the Empowerment of Persons with Visual Disabilities ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:39 LANI +05'30' 11 Item No. 76 O.A. No. 4784/2025 Court No. IV (NIEPVD), formulate uniform guidelines and protocols for the use of Screen Reader Software and other assistive technologies to ensure standardisation, accessibility, and security of the examination process across all or identified examination centres, as deemed fit by it. Respondent No. 1-Union of India, through the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) and the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, shall extend all necessary administrative and technical support to respondent No. 2-UPSC for the expeditious implementation of the above measures and shall facilitate coordination with State Governments and examination authorities wherever required. It is further directed that the implementation of these measures shall be undertaken in a manner that ensures full accessibility to eligible candidates while maintaining the sanctity, confidentiality, and fairness of the examination process.
12. The aforesaid directions are being issued to ensure that the constitutional mandate of equality, non-discrimination, and the right to live with dignity enshrined under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, read with the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, is meaningfully implemented, and that the facilitative measures envisaged by respondent No. 2-UPSC are operationalised in both letter and spirit within the stipulated timeframe.
13. Before parting, this Court deems it appropriate to observe that the true measure of inclusivity in governance lies not merely in the formulation of progressive policies but in their faithful and effective implementation. The rights guaranteed to persons with disabilities are not acts of benevolence, but expressions of the constitutional promise of equality, dignity, and non-
discrimination enshrined in Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Union Public Service Commission, being the premier constitutional body entrusted with upholding the values of merit and fairness in public recruitment, must ensure that its processes are accessible, transparent, and sensitive to the needs of every segment of society. It is therefore imperative that the directions issued herein are carried out with utmost earnestness, sensitivity, and expedition, so that the constitutional vision of equal opportunity and meaningful participation of persons with disabilities is not reduced to a distant aspiration, but is realised as a living, enforceable, and enduring reality in the conduct of all public examinations in the country.
14. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of, in terms of the observations and directions hereinabove." 5.9 A careful reading of the aforesaid decisions makes it abundantly clear that the principle of reasonable accommodation is fundamental to securing equality and meaningful participation for persons with disabilities. The facility of a scribe or grant of compensatory time, being an integral component of such reasonable accommodation, ought not to be construed in a manner that results in discrimination or defeats the very object and intent of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The purpose behind ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:39 LANI +05'30' 12 Item No. 76 O.A. No. 4784/2025 Court No. IV permitting the assistance of a scribe is to facilitate effective participation of a candidate with disability during the conduct of the examination and to ensure a level playing field. Consequently, the question relating to the eligibility and suitability of a scribe would necessarily arise at the stage when the candidate actually appears in the examination, since prior thereto the occasion for availing such facility does not arise. From the records placed before us, it is evident that the applicant had duly complied with the prescribed requirements by furnishing the necessary declaration and undertaking in consonance with Clause 2.11.6 of the advertisement. The respondents, having accepted the said declaration and permitted the applicant to undertake the examination with the assistance of the scribe, cannot subsequently invalidate the candidature on a hyper-technical interpretation of the applicable condition. Clause 2.11.6, reads as under:
"2.11.6 In case the candidate is allowed to bring his/her own scribe, the qualification of the scribe should be one step below the qualification of the candidate taking the examination and the scribe should not be a candidate of this examination. If a candidate is detected as assisting another PwBD candidate as scribe in this examination, then the candidature of both the candidates shall be cancelled. The persons with benchmark disabilities opting for own scribe/reader shall submit details of the own scribe as per the prescribed proforma. In addition, the scribe shall produce any one of the following valid photo identity proofs in original, along with a photocopy of the same duly signed by both the candidate and the scribe, at the time of examination:-
(i) Aadhaar Card / Printout of E-Aadhaar;
(ii) Voter's Identity Card;
(iii) Driving License;
(iv) PAN Card;
(v) Passport;
(vi) Employer Identity Card (Government/PSU);
(vii) Ex-Serviceman Discharge Book issued by the Ministry of Defence;
(viii) Any other photo-bearing Identity Card issued by the Central Government or State Government."
5.10 The qualification of a scribe being one step below the qualification of the candidate taking the examination has to be determined with reference to ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:39 LANI +05'30' 13 Item No. 76 O.A. No. 4784/2025 Court No. IV the date of examination and not the closing date for submission of applications. It is not even the case of the respondents that there was any misdeclaration regarding the educational qualifications of the scribe in the prescribed format or undertaking furnished at the examination centre.
6. CONCLUSION :
6.1. We, therefore, set aside the impugned communication dated 07.05.2025 rejecting the candidature of the applicant for the post of Assistant Section Officer and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the applicant to the said post on the basis of her merit and selection pursuant to Advertisement dated 03.06.2023, subject to her otherwise fulfilling all other eligibility conditions, with all consequential benefits, including seniority on notional basis. The actual benefits shall accrue from the date of her joining.
6.2. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
6.3. The O.A. is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/as/
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAK 15
10:39:39
LANI +05'30'