Temporary Disability Certificates Cannot Automatically Defeat Appointment: Central Administrative Tribunal on Disability Reservation

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal Bench, New Delhi)
Bench: Manish Garg (Member – Judicial) and Rajinder Kashyap (Member – Administrative)
Case No.: O.A. No. 666/2024
Case Title: Keshav v. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 9 February 2026

Background

The case arose from a recruitment process conducted by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi for the post of Junior Administrative Assistant reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities. The applicant, who had applied under the PwBD–Low Vision category, successfully cleared the recruitment examination and was provisionally selected for the post.

However, the authorities declined to issue the appointment letter on the ground that the disability certificate produced by the applicant described his disability as temporary and valid only up to a specified period, rather than as a permanent disability. The respondents argued that reservation under the PwBD category required a permanent disability certificate and therefore the applicant was not eligible to be appointed against the reserved post.

Challenging this decision, the applicant approached the Tribunal arguing that the rejection of his candidature was arbitrary and contrary to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. He contended that the disability certificate had been issued by a competent medical authority and clearly established the existence of benchmark disability exceeding the statutory threshold at the relevant time.

The dispute therefore raised an important question regarding the interpretation of disability certification requirements and whether administrative authorities could deny the benefit of reservation solely because a disability certificate described the disability as temporary.

Key Observations

The Bench emphasised that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is a beneficial legislation intended to promote the inclusion of persons with disabilities in public employment. The Tribunal noted that the statute defines a person with benchmark disability primarily with reference to the extent of disability, rather than whether the disability is labelled permanent or temporary.

It was observed that the applicant possessed a disability certificate issued by a competent medical authority certifying 90% low vision disability, which clearly satisfied the statutory requirement of benchmark disability. The mere fact that the certificate was valid for a limited period did not negate the existence of disability during the relevant recruitment stage.

The Tribunal also noted that the definition of “person with disability” under the RPwD Act refers to long-term impairment that restricts participation in society. Administrative authorities must therefore avoid adopting an overly restrictive interpretation that defeats the beneficial purpose of the legislation.

Importantly, the Bench emphasised that denying appointment solely on the ground that a certificate is temporary would introduce unnecessary rigidity into the recruitment framework and undermine the objective of ensuring participation of persons with disabilities in public employment.

Directions Issued

• The Tribunal held that the rejection of the applicant’s candidature solely on the ground that his disability certificate was temporary was unsustainable.

• The respondents were directed to reconsider the applicant’s case for appointment under the PwBD category in accordance with the provisions of the RPwD Act.

• Authorities were instructed to ensure that disability certification issued by competent medical boards is assessed in a manner consistent with the objectives of disability rights legislation.

Commentary

The decision addresses an issue that frequently arises in disability-related recruitment disputes: the reliance by administrative authorities on technical interpretations of disability certification. While the RPwD Act establishes a statutory framework for identifying benchmark disability, inconsistencies in administrative practice often create barriers for candidates with disabilities.

Temporary disability certificates are sometimes issued where periodic reassessment of a medical condition is required. Treating such certificates as automatically disqualifying candidates from disability reservation would undermine the inclusive objectives of the legislation.

By emphasising that the existence of benchmark disability at the relevant time should be the primary consideration, the Tribunal reinforced the principle that disability rights legislation must be interpreted liberally in favour of inclusion.

More broadly, the decision highlights the need for recruitment authorities to apply disability reservation policies in a manner consistent with the rights-based approach embodied in the RPwD Act, ensuring that persons with disabilities are not excluded through overly technical administrative interpretations.

Read the judgement [PDF 8.7MB]

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]