Thursday, September 25, 2025

Recruitment Authorities Must Ensure Statutory Reservation Framework to include Specific Learning Disabilities (Dyslexia) : CAT on Disability Rights in Civil Services Examination

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal Bench, New Delhi)
Bench: Manish Garg (Member – Judicial) and Dr. Anand S. Khati (Member – Administrative)
Case No.: O.A. No. 3553/2024
Case Title: Molshree Aggarwal & Anr. v. Union Public Service Commission & Ors.
Date of Order: 25 September 2025 

Background

The matter before the Central Administrative Tribunal arose from a challenge relating to the framework governing reservation for persons with disabilities in the Civil Services Examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). The applicants, candidates with benchmark disability in the nature of Specific Learning Disability (dyslexia), alleged that the examination framework adopted by the authorities excluded their disability category from the reservation scheme under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. 

According to the applicants, the authorities had failed to extend the statutory reservation framework to candidates belonging to disability category (d), despite the mandate contained in Section 34 of the RPwD Act. As a consequence, candidates with specific learning disabilities were effectively required to compete in the examination without the benefit of reservation available to other benchmark disability categories.

The applicants argued that the RPwD Act places a clear obligation on public authorities to ensure that recruitment examinations and service frameworks are structured in a manner that enables the effective participation of persons with disabilities. They contended that the exclusion of their disability category from the reservation scheme amounted to discrimination and undermined the statutory guarantees contained in the disability rights legislation.

Key Observations 

The Central Administrative Tribunal emphasised that recruitment frameworks governing access to public employment must operate consistently with the statutory provisions of the RPwD Act. Competitive examinations such as the Civil Services Examination play a decisive role in determining entry into public services, and therefore the governing rules must reflect the legislative mandate regarding disability reservation and inclusion.

The Tribunal examined the policy framework adopted by the authorities, including the Office Memoranda and recommendations of expert committees relating to the identification of suitable disability categories for participation in the Civil Services Examination. The Bench observed that the statutory scheme of the RPwD Act requires the State to ensure meaningful participation of persons with benchmark disabilities in public employment through appropriate identification of posts and implementation of reservation.

The Tribunal further noted that while recruitment authorities possess the power to identify functional requirements of posts, such identification must remain consistent with the statutory objectives of disability rights legislation. Excluding entire categories of disabilities without adequate justification could potentially undermine the principle of equal opportunity in public employment.

Importantly, the Tribunal emphasised that disability rights jurisprudence increasingly recognises the principle of reasonable accommodation and inclusive participation as central components of equality within administrative systems.

Directions Issued

• The Tribunal examined the claims of the applicants regarding exclusion of disability category (d) from the Civil Services Examination framework.

• It directed that the candidature of the concerned applicant be considered for appointment in the event that the candidate placed above her in the merit list does not join within the validity period of the panel. 

• The matter relating to the broader legality of the policy framework governing disability categories in the Civil Services Examination remained subject to further examination in accordance with law.

Commentary

The decision highlights the continuing challenges associated with implementing disability rights within competitive recruitment systems. Public service examinations such as the Civil Services Examination represent one of the most significant gateways to public employment in India, and therefore the design of these frameworks has far-reaching implications for the inclusion of persons with disabilities.

Historically, recruitment systems have often been structured around rigid functional assumptions regarding the abilities required for public service roles. Such assumptions can inadvertently lead to the exclusion of certain disability categories, particularly where institutional frameworks do not adequately account for evolving understandings of disability and accommodation.

By examining the interaction between the statutory mandate of the RPwD Act and the administrative framework governing the Civil Services Examination, the Tribunal engaged with a broader constitutional question regarding equality in access to public employment. Disability rights legislation seeks to ensure that institutional structures evolve to accommodate diverse abilities rather than restricting participation through rigid classification systems.

The decision therefore contributes to the ongoing development of disability rights jurisprudence in India by highlighting the need for recruitment frameworks that align administrative practice with the statutory commitment to inclusion and equal opportunity.

Read the judgement [PDF 13 MB]


Friday, September 12, 2025

Why Are Disabled Persons Who Make Open Category Cut-Off Not Treated as General Candidates? Supreme Court Asks Centre

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta
Case Title:  Reena Banerjee and Another vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and Others (I.A. No(s). 130117 of 2018 in Civil Appeal No(s). 11938 of 2016  with
Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 116/1998 
Date of Judgment: September 12, 2025
Law:  Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (Section 34)

Case Summary

On September 12, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment reinforcing disability rights under the constitutional framework and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPWD Act). The Court intervened on two distinct but connected issues:

  1. Upward Movement in Merit Lists for Persons with Disabilities (PWD)
    The Court expressed grave concern over the systemic denial of upward movement in the merit list for PWD candidates in public employment and education recruitment. Despite scoring above the general (unreserved) category cut-off, PWD candidates are treated only as reserved category candidates. This practice leads to lower-scoring PWD candidates occupying reserved seats, which the Court rightly described as "hostile discrimination." The Court directed the Central Government to explain by October 14, 2025, the steps taken to ensure that meritorious candidates are not denied upward movement and that the same principle applies to promotions as well.

  2. Project Ability Empowerment: Nationwide Monitoring of Care Institutions
    The Court initiated a comprehensive, independent, nationwide monitoring framework named Project Ability Empowerment. This follows decades of systemic neglect in state-run and private institutions housing persons with cognitive disabilities. The goal is to ensure effective implementation of the RPWD Act, safeguard constitutional rights, and shift away from institutionalisation toward community-based, inclusive models of care.

Key Directions and Distinct Aspects of the Judgment

1. Resident Profiling, Care and Rehabilitation

  • Individualized profiling of every resident, including age, gender, disability profile, medical history, education level, vocational skills, and psychosocial needs.
  • Creation of Individual Care Plans aligned with best practices to facilitate rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.
  • Assessment of healthcare access, periodic review of psychiatric prescriptions, and establishment of multidisciplinary care teams.

2. Accessibility, Infrastructure, and Education

  • In-depth audits of physical accessibility aligned with the Harmonised Guidelines and Standards for Universal Accessibility.
  • Evaluation of accessible transport, assistive technologies, and communication formats.
  • Assessment of access to education for children and vocational training for adults, including institutional support for the National Institute of Open Schooling.

3. Rights, Protection, and Compliance

  • Examination of grievance redressal mechanisms, institutional policies, and participatory governance structures.
  • Review of use of restraints and behaviour management policies.
  • Monitoring compliance with the RPWD Act and the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, including appointment of protection officers and institution registration.

4. Staffing, Resources, and Accountability

  • Analysis of staffing strength, qualifications, training, and remuneration.
  • Review of institutional record-keeping, transparency mechanisms, and responsiveness to Right to Information (RTI) applications.

5. Documentation and Welfare Access

  • Recommendations for maintaining an online presence of institutions with an institutional dashboard containing essential functioning information.
  • Facilitation of Aadhaar enrollment for every resident to ensure access to welfare schemes.

6. Reservation under Section 34 of the RPWD Act

  • Strong emphasis on a positive and purposive interpretation of the reservation provisions.
  • Recognition that disability is not homogeneous, requiring nuanced application of affirmative action.
  • Mandate that meritorious PWD candidates should benefit from upward movement, leaving reserved seats for those with greater structural disadvantage.

Implications

This judgment marks a watershed moment in disability rights jurisprudence in India. It firmly rejects outdated medical and charitable paradigms of disability in favour of a rights-based, inclusive constitutional vision. The Court highlighted that reasonable accommodation is not charity but a fundamental right flowing from Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The involvement of eight National Law Universities, regionalised across India, introduces a systematic, independent monitoring mechanism. The report due in March 2026 will present a data-driven, actionable pathway toward systemic reforms, including transition from institutional care to community living.

By addressing both affirmative action in public recruitment and the quality of institutional care, the Supreme Court affirmed that the true and substantive benefit of disability reservations and welfare must reach the most marginalized.

Read the judgement dated 12 Sep 2025 here




For further detailed updates on disability rights and authoritative case summaries, visit disabilityrightsindia.com.