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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Reservation under Section 34 of the RPWD Act

• Strong emphasis on a positive and purposive interpretation of the reservation provision.

• 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.

Disabeld Candidates selected on own merit in open competition can't be adjusted against Reserved Disability Quota Vacancies.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Case: Civil Appeal No (s). 3303/2015  (arising out of Delhi HC Order dated October 11, 2013 in W.P.(C) 4902/2013 titled Union of India Vs. Pankaj Kumar Srivastava & Anr. )

Case Title: Union of India (Appellant)  Vs.  Pankaj Kumar Srivastava & Anr. (Respondent(s))

Date of Order: 01 March 2023

Brief Background:

In a significant development, the Central Government recently acknowledged before the Supreme Court that disabled candidates selected based on their own merit in open competition, alongside unreserved candidates, will no longer be counted within the 4% disability quota for public sector employment. This change is expected to result in more disabled candidates with lower merit rankings being chosen within the disability quota, ultimately increasing the overall representation of individuals with disabilities in public sector positions. 

This "own merit" principle for disabled candidates had been outlined in several DOPT Memorandums & other govt. circulars on reservations for persons  with disabilities previously, but it was not consistently followed by various public sector recruiting bodies. Shri Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, a visually impaired candidate, raised this grievance before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). He alleged that the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) was not adhering to the principle of own merit for the Civil Services Examination. Several disabled candidates, despite their merit ranking in the unreserved category, were being placed within the disability quota. If they had been categorized as unreserved, Mr. Srivastava, next in line in terms of merit, would have secured selection within the disability quota.

In the case, the UPSC argued that the "own merit" principle couldn't be applied to disabled candidates due to their relaxed medical standards and the use of accommodations such as scribes and extra time for examinations. However, both the CAT and the Delhi High Court disagreed with the UPSC's stance, directing a re-evaluation of the disability quota for the relevant year by moving "own merit" disabled candidates into the open category. 

The UPSC argued that the principle of general merit as evolved by the judicial pronouncements and incorporated in the DoPT OM dated December 29, 2005 is incapable of application in respect of PH Category as the medical standards are incapable of being relaxed for application of the said principle. The principle is unworkable in the scenario of reservation in favour of differently abled persons. The term relaxed standard has not been defined in case of persons with disability and no illustration of relaxed standards as given in respect of SC/ST have been provided in case of person with disability. And that a PwD candidate who would fail medical examination would not be adjusted against the unreserved vacancy and could not be counted on merits. If medical requirements are not relaxed it would not be possible to allocate service to the persons with disability. And lastly a PH category candidate cannot be a general merit candidates because at least he has to avail one or the other relaxation in the medical parameters.  

The Delhi HC said, "There cannot be two opinions about the applicability of the principle of general merit in the light of the Office Memorandum dated December 29, 2005 and April 26, 2006 issued by the petitioner itself. The same is the situation reflected in the mandate under Rule 17 of the CSE Rules 2008. Thus it is not possible for the petitioner to contend before us that there is an error in the order of the Tribunal in issuing directions to consider the entitlement of the applicants on the basis of said principle. We affirm the view taken by the Tribunal with regard to its observation that grant of the facility of scribe and extra time of 30 minutes in the examination to the visually impaired candidates does not amount to relaxation of standards in their favour. The omission on the part of the executive i.e. DOPT which is the Nodal Department to issue Office Memorandum/Executive Instructions on matters pertaining to the Central Service has created a situation wherein the benefit is sought to be given on the one hand through the issuance of Office Memorandum(s) dated December 29, 2005 and April 26, 2006, and stands taken away by the other hand as a result of the inaction to issue the consequential amendment contemplated by Rule 17 of the CSE Rules, 2008.

The court further said that the Petitioner (Govt.) has itself caused a situation, whereby the entitlements which ought to have been available to the differently abled persons as early as on February 07, 1996 (the date of the commencement of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995) are being denied to them till today. The situation points out to a grim scenario which is the creation of the petitioner itself. The bench directed the Govt. to make the amendments as contemplated by Rule 17 fo CSE Rules 2008 and upheld the order of the CAT.

Appeal before the Supreme Court:

The matter was further appealed by UPSC in the Supreme Court of India which also rejected the UPSC's position and instructed the Government of India to issue a clarificatory circular to enforce the own merit principle. In compliance, the Government issued an clarifying Office Memorandum on September 27, 2022 on subject: Reservation for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities - Clarification with regard to the concept of own merit.

During the hearing on March 1, 2023, the Supreme Court directed that the OM dated 27 September 2022 be followed in all future selection processes strictly.

Access the Delhi High Court Judgement in W.P.(C) 4902/2013 titled Union of India Vs. Pankaj Kumar Srivastava & Anr.: