Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Vinod Kumar
Case: Manish Kumar Vs. Railway Board & Anr.
Case No.: W.P.(C): 18345/2025
Judgment: 08 September 2026
Earlier proceedings: O.A. No. 1409/2019, Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench
Result: CAT judgment and Railway Board's cancellation of candidature set aside.
A neurological condition causing locomotor disability cannot be used to disqualify a candidate who meets the functional requirements of the post.
By Advocate Subhash Chandra Vashishth
The case raises a larger question: Can a medical label become more important than a person's recognised disability, demonstrated functional ability and merit?
From a recognised locomotor disability to a "neurological" candidate
The petitioner had a disability certificate issued by Govind Ballabh Pant Hospital in 2012, certifying 45% permanent locomotor disability. The certificate was issued under the legal framework then applicable, including the 2001 Guidelines for Evaluation of Various Disabilities and Procedure for Certification.
Those Guidelines defined locomotor disability to include inability resulting from an affliction of the musculoskeletal and/or nervous system.
The petitioner's condition—Generalised Dystonia with Myoclonus—had neurological causes and manifested principally through his right upper limb, with some impact on speech. His disability, however, had been recognised and certified as locomotor disability.
He subsequently obtained a Government-issued UDID card recognising 45% locomotor disability.
There was also an important procedural development. After the enactment of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the petitioner obtained another certificate from IHBAS describing the condition as a temporary neurological disability. The petitioner's case was that this newer terminology could not erase or transform the already recognised underlying locomotor disability.
He cleared the UPSC examination. The problem came later.
The petitioner appeared for the Engineering Services Examination, 2017, under the PwD category.
He cleared the Preliminary Examination, Main Examination and Personality Test, securing Rank C-254. For the relevant Civil Engineering posts, the identified categories included OA (one arm affected) and the prescribed functional requirements included sitting, standing, bending, walking, seeing, reading, writing, communication and manipulation by fingers. The petition specifically asserted that the petitioner could perform these functions.
Yet, after clearing the examination, he was subjected to a Railway Board medical examination.
The Medical Board declared him unfit on the ground that “Generalised Dystonia with Myoclonus and Dysarthria” did not qualify within the physical disabilities identified under Annexure I of the ESE Rules, 2017.
He appealed.
The Appellate Medical Board again recognised his neurological condition. Importantly, however, the case record records that he was capable of performing the essential physical functions required for the post. Nevertheless, because the Board treated his condition as a neurological disability for which the relevant posts were not identified, his candidature was not considered.
The argument before the CAT
I represented the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal, where the challenge to the cancellation of his candidature was heard as O.A. No. 1409/2019.
The central argument was that the authorities had fallen into a fundamental error by treating the neurological manifestations of the petitioner's condition as changing the nature of his recognised disability.
The case was not that the petitioner did not have a neurological condition. He did.
The case was that the neurological condition resulted in a locomotor disability, which had already been certified as such. The symptoms did not transform the petitioner's recognised locomotor disability into an entirely different category for the purpose of denying him an identified post.
The petition also pointed out that the neurological symptoms were episodic and that the petitioner remained capable of performing the essential functions of the post. What was required, therefore, was consideration of his functional ability and reasonable accommodation—not exclusion by nomenclature.
The CAT, however, dismissed the application on 27 September 2024, accepting the position that the petitioner's neurological disability did not fall within the identified PwBD categories for Civil Engineering services.
The intervention of the State Commissioner
An important piece of evidence before the High Court was the reasoned order of Shri TD Dhariyal, the then State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Delhi, dated 18 May 2018, then .
The Commissioner recorded that the petitioner's neurological condition had primarily affected his right arm, with mild speech impairment, and that the condition did not appear to affect his functional ability to the extent that he could not perform the relevant work.
The Commissioner also directed that the disability certificate be corrected/reissued in the appropriate statutory form based on the 45% locomotor disability already assessed in 2012.
Thus, the record contained an important distinction between the medical cause of the impairment and the disability resulting from that impairment. We have seen in our practice that many a times the medical professionals focus more on aetiology of the disabling condition rather than the functional abilities and the disability category recognised in law for the purpose of job identification. This defeats the whole objective of issuance of a disability certificate. And in general there is a huge lack of awareness about neurological conditions among employers.
What did the High Court say?
The Delhi High Court considered five important factors, including:
- the Government-issued UDID recognising the petitioner as having 45% locomotor disability;
- the 2001 Government notification, which expressly included impairments arising from the nervous system within the definition of locomotor disability;
- medical evidence showing that the petitioner's neurological condition affected his movement;
- the order of the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities; and
- the Supreme Court's decision in Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Services.
In Om Rathod, the Supreme Court had held that a person possessing a valid disability certificate cannot simply be subjected to another medical examination for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion contrary to the disability recorded in that certificate.
Applying these principles, the Delhi High Court held that the CAT had erred in treating the petitioner as ineligible for recruitment to the Civil Engineering Service.
The Court consequently quashed both the CAT's judgment dated 27 September 2024 and the Railway Board's decision cancelling the petitioner's candidature, and directed consequential relief.
Why this judgment matters
The case illustrates a recurring problem in disability assessment: the tendency to treat diagnostic terminology as if it were synonymous with disability classification and functional capacity.
A person may have a neurological condition. That condition may result in a locomotor disability. The existence of a neurological cause does not, by itself, mean that the person ceases to have a locomotor disability.
More importantly, a new or different medical description or aetiology cannot become a convenient route to exclusion when the person's disability has already been recognised and the person is demonstrably capable of performing the functions of the post.
The petition had specifically challenged the mechanical reliance on the nomenclature of the condition instead of examining the actual functional requirements of the job. It also invoked the RPwD Act's principles of equality, non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation in employment.
The facts make the point particularly stark: the candidate had cleared every stage of a highly competitive examination and secured Rank C-254; the medical record itself recognised his ability to perform the prescribed physical functions; yet his candidature was ultimately rejected because his condition was described under a category which the authorities considered not identified for the post.
Disability classification should enable rights, not become a tool for exclusion
The significance of Manish Kumar lies not merely in the relief granted to one candidate.
It is a reminder that medical assessment in recruitment must not become an exercise in finding a label that excludes a person with disability.
Where a disability has been duly certified, the assessment of suitability should focus on the actual functional requirements of the post, the individual's ability to perform those functions, and reasonable accommodation where required.
A neurological condition causing locomotor disability does not make the person less capable merely because medical terminology has evolved.
The law must look at the person, the disability and the functions of the job—not merely the label attached to the diagnosis.
Read the Judgement in Manish Kumar Vs. Railway Board & Anr