When Medical Labels Become Barriers: Delhi High Court Protects UPSC Candidate with Locomotor Disability

Court: High Court of Delhi
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

In a significant judgment on disability rights and public employment, the Delhi High Court has set aside the cancellation of the candidature of a UPSC Engineering Services Examination candidate whose locomotor disability arose from a neurological condition.

In Manish Kumar v. Railway Board & Anr., W.P.(C) 18345/2025, decided on 8 September 2026, a Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Vinod Kumar held that the Central Administrative Tribunal had erred in treating the petitioner as ineligible for recruitment to the Civil Engineering Service.

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

Religious Places Must Be Accessible: Delhi State Commissioner Directs Time-Bound Action to Ensure the Right of Persons with Disabilities to Worship

Authority: Court of the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, NCT of Delhi
Commissioner: Shri T.D. Dhariyal, State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Govt of NCT of Delhi
Case Nos.: 237/1101/2018/05 and connected cases
Case Title: Suo Motu v. District Magistrates of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Date of Order: 15 October 2019

The Issue

Can a person with disability be denied meaningful access to a place of worship merely because the temple, mosque, gurudwara, church, dargah or other religious place is inaccessible? The Delhi State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities answered this question unequivocally: No.

In a significant suo motu order dated 15 October 2019, the State Commissioner examined the accessibility of places of worship across all 11 districts of Delhi and directed the concerned authorities to undertake time-bound measures to make religious places accessible to persons with disabilities.

The order is important because it moves the discourse on accessibility of religious places beyond charity or assistance. It recognises accessibility to worship as a legal right flowing from the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act).

The proceedings were initiated against the District Magistrates after an earlier suo motu exercise on inaccessible built environments and transport had failed to obtain information regarding places of worship, hotels, restaurants and entertainment facilities, many of which were managed by private establishments or trusts.

Religious Places Are “Public Buildings” Under the RPwD Act

A significant feature of the order is its reliance on the statutory definition of “public building” under Section 2(w) of the RPwD Act.

The definition expressly includes buildings used or accessed by the public for religious, cultural, leisure or recreational activities, apart from educational institutions, workplaces, commercial establishments, public utilities, hospitals, courts, railway stations, bus stands, airports and other facilities.

Similarly, the definition of “public facilities and services” under Section 2(x) expressly includes religious and cultural services alongside education, employment, healthcare, banking, communication, transportation and access to justice.

Thus, the statutory scheme leaves little room for treating religious places as being outside the accessibility framework merely because they are managed by private trusts, societies, committees or other organisations.

Accessibility Is a Statutory Obligation, Not an Act of Charity

The Commissioner referred to Section 45 of the RPwD Act, which requires existing public buildings to be made accessible in accordance with the accessibility rules.

The order also referred to Section 46, which requires service providers—whether Government or private—to provide services in accordance with the accessibility rules.

Importantly, Rule 15 of the RPwD Rules, 2017 required the prescribed standards for public buildings to be followed with reference to the Harmonised Guidelines and Space Standards for Barrier-Free Built Environment for Persons with Disabilities and Elderly Persons.

The Commissioner therefore rejected the notion that accessibility could be left to the goodwill of individual religious institutions.

The order specifically states that making existing public buildings—including places of worship such as mandirs, gurudwaras, masjids and churches—accessible is the responsibility of the concerned trusts, committees, establishments or organisations.

The Right to Worship Must Be Exercised on an Equal Basis

The proceedings were not confined to the physical entry of a person with disability into a religious building.

The District Magistrates were asked to ensure that persons with disabilities could enjoy their right to worship on an equal basis with others.

The Commissioner went further and directed that accessibility should extend to the different components of the religious experience, including:

• the main place of worship;
• the sanctum sanctorum;
• points for distribution or sale of prasad;
• facilities for purchasing worship material such as flowers;
• drinking-water facilities;
• toilets; and
• parking facilities, wherever provided.

The direction was not merely to identify inaccessible premises but to ensure that the concerned managements were guided and assisted in making these facilities accessible.

This is a particularly important aspect of the order. Accessibility is not achieved merely by installing a ramp at the entrance if the person with disability cannot independently or meaningfully participate in the religious activity itself.

The Ground Reality: Large-Scale Inaccessibility

The order provides an unusually useful snapshot of the state of accessibility of religious places in Delhi in 2019.

Information obtained from the 11 districts showed considerable variations:

District	Total Places of Worship	Accessible	Inaccessible
South-East	283	126 (44.5%)	157
North-East	101	74 (73%)	27
North	110	72 (65.4%)	38
East	457	28 (6.1%)	429
Shahdara	263	23 (8.74%)	240
New Delhi	85	49 (57.6%)	36
West	202	126 (62.37%)	76
Central	22	1 (4.54%)	21
North-West	326	13 (3.98%)	313
South-West	430	12 (2.79%)	418
South	50	23 (46%)	27

The data revealed particularly serious gaps in districts such as South-West, North-West, Central, East and Shahdara. The Commissioner also noted that many of the figures submitted by District Magistrates were incomplete or inaccurate and, in some instances, had apparently been supplied without physical verification.

The order therefore highlights another important principle: accessibility cannot be assessed merely on the basis of declarations by building owners or administrators. It requires meaningful verification against accessibility requirements.

Physical Verification Revealed Serious Gaps

The Commissioner recorded that some districts had not even identified all places of worship within their jurisdiction.

In several cases, information about accessibility was inaccurate. The officials collecting the information were themselves apparently unfamiliar with the accessibility requirements, despite having been provided with an easy-to-understand checklist. In one instance, an SDM office was even reported as a place of worship.

This led to an important administrative lesson: accessibility monitoring requires both institutional responsibility and technical understanding of accessibility.

A Significant Observation Following Physical Visits

The Commissioner personally visited several prominent religious places in Delhi, including Jama Masjid, Sis Ganj Gurdwara, Gauri Shankar Mandir, Shree Digamber Jain Mandir, Dargah Alia Hazrat, Birla Mandir, Sacred Heart Cathedral, Hanuman Mandir, Gurdwara Bangla Sahib and Sai Mandir.

The observations were revealing.

While some accessibility facilities, including ramps, had been provided at gurudwaras and churches, the Commissioner observed that the temples visited had not similarly provided such facilities. At some inaccessible places, management representatives stated that persons using wheelchairs or having other disabilities would be assisted whenever they came to worship.

The order rightly drew a distinction between assistance and accessibility.

The Commissioner particularly appreciated the chair lift installed at Gurudwara Sis Ganj, despite the extremely congested location, and noted the efforts of Gurdwara Bangla Sahib to facilitate worship by persons with disabilities.

The underlying message is significant: a person with disability should not have to depend upon the physical assistance or goodwill of another person to exercise a basic right that others can exercise independently.

Accessibility Must Extend to the Sanctum Sanctorum

One of the strongest observations in the order concerns participation in religious activities.

The Commissioner noted that even where it might not be possible to make every place of worship fully accessible according to prescribed standards, the concerned trust, society or organisation must make its best efforts to enable persons with disabilities—particularly persons with restricted mobility—to participate in all religious activities according to their choice, including access to the sanctum sanctorum.

This is a valuable interpretation of accessibility.

A person with disability cannot be considered “included” merely because he or she can enter the premises and remain at a designated location while others proceed to the principal place of worship. Meaningful participation is the objective of accessibility.

“We Do Not Have Funds” Is Not an Answer

The Commissioner also dealt expressly with the argument that some religious trusts or committees lacked sufficient funds to create accessibility features such as ramps.

The order clarified that there was, at that time, no Government of India or State Government scheme providing funds for making existing public buildings accessible. Nevertheless, the statutory responsibility to make existing public buildings accessible remained with the concerned trusts, committees, establishments or organisations.

The order further stated that where a person, trust, society, committee or organisation proposes to undertake religious activity at a place open to the public, accessibility to the facility, service and building must be mandatory, and the concerned licensing, regulatory or approving authority should make this requirement explicit.

This has wider implications beyond existing religious buildings: accessibility should form part of regulatory approval and licensing processes for religious establishments open to the public.

Reliance on the “Guidelines for Making the Religious Places Accessible”

Perhaps the most notable aspect of the order for accessibility practitioners is its express reliance on the “Guidelines for Making the Religious Places Accessible.”

The Commissioner recommended that accessibility audits of large and important places of worship be conducted and that such places be made accessible, as far as possible, in accordance with these Guidelines.

The order records that the Guidelines were published by the Office of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities with the help of Svayam, and directed that copies of the Guidelines and the checklist used during the proceedings be disseminated to the functionaries managing places of worship in Delhi.

It is noteworthy that these Guidelines were authored by Subhash Chandra Vashishth while serving at Svayam. Their reference in this order demonstrates the importance of translating the general statutory mandate of accessibility into sector-specific practical guidance for religious places.

From Compliance to Replication: Model Accessible Places of Worship

The Commissioner did not stop at directions for individual religious places.

District Magistrates were encouraged to identify a few places of worship and develop them as model accessible places of worship, which could subsequently be replicated across Delhi and the country.

The order contemplated that successful models could be circulated to State Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities for replication across the then 731 districts of the country.

This is an important policy approach: rather than treating accessibility as a collection of isolated retrofitting exercises, the administration could develop demonstrable models covering different faith traditions, building typologies and site constraints.

Awareness and Sensitisation Are Part of the Legal Framework

The Commissioner also invoked Section 39 of the RPwD Act, which requires the appropriate Government, in consultation with the Chief Commissioner or State Commissioner, to conduct, encourage, support or promote awareness campaigns and sensitisation programmes to protect the rights of persons with disabilities.

The order emphasised that this awareness-building must extend not only to government officials but also to the functionaries of trusts, committees and organisations managing places of worship.

Thus, accessibility requires more than physical modifications. It requires institutional sensitisation, trained personnel, accessible procedures and an understanding of disability rights.

Directions and Recommendations

The State Commissioner ultimately recommended, among other things, that:

1. Every District Magistrate maintain consolidated information concerning all places of worship in the district.
2. Large and important religious places be subjected to accessibility audits wherever necessary.
3. Accessibility be assessed with reference to the prescribed Guidelines for Making Religious Places Accessible.
4. The checklist developed during the proceedings be disseminated among religious institutions.
5. Time-bound action plans be prepared for inaccessible places.
6. The concerned monitoring committee undertake sample physical verification of places of worship.
7. Model accessible places of worship be developed for replication.
8. The concerned authorities report action taken within three months in accordance with Section 81 of the RPwD Act.

The proceedings were thereafter disposed of by the State Commissioner on 15 October 2019.

Why This Order Matters

The order is significant for at least five reasons.

1. Religious freedom and disability rights intersect

The order recognises that the right of persons with disabilities to participate in religious life cannot be separated from accessibility. Religious inclusion is disability inclusion.

2. Private management does not take religious places outside the RPwD Act

The fact that a temple, mosque, gurudwara, church or other place of worship is managed by a trust, society or committee does not by itself exempt it from accessibility obligations when it is a public building or provides services to the public.

3. Assistance is not a substitute for accessibility

Being carried up a staircase, being physically assisted into a place of worship or being offered worship material outside the premises cannot be treated as equivalent to accessible and dignified participation. The objective must be independence, dignity, choice and equal participation.

4. Accessibility must cover the entire user journey

The order's reference to sanctum sanctorum, prasad, worship material, drinking water, toilets and parking is a reminder that accessibility is not synonymous with a ramp. A genuinely accessible religious place must consider the complete experience of the worshipper.

5. Accessibility must be planned, monitored and verified

The experience of the Delhi proceedings demonstrated that merely asking authorities to submit information is insufficient. Physical verification, accessibility audits, technical guidance, timelines and monitoring mechanisms are all necessary.

A Continuing Reminder for Religious Institutions

The Delhi State Commissioner's order was made in 2019, when the statutory deadlines under Sections 45 and 46 were still running. The order specifically recorded that existing public buildings were required to be made accessible within five years of the notification of the relevant Rules, and emphasised that action plans had to be prepared well before the deadline rather than waiting until the last day.

The significance of the order, however, extends beyond those historical deadlines.

Accessibility is now firmly embedded in the legal architecture of the RPwD Act. Religious institutions open to the public must therefore view accessibility not as a favour extended to persons with disabilities but as part of their legal and social responsibility.

The question should no longer be:

“How will we help a person with disability enter our place of worship?”

It should be:

“Can a person with disability enter, worship, participate, access facilities and leave with the same dignity, independence and choice as everyone else?”

That is the real test of an accessible place of worship.

DRI Takeaway

The 15 October 2019 order of the Delhi State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities is an important disability-rights precedent for equal access to religious life.

Its central message remains highly relevant:

"A place of worship open to the public is not outside the accessibility mandate merely because it is a religious institution or is managed by a private trust."

The RPwD Act recognises religious buildings as public buildings and religious services as public facilities and services. Accessibility therefore extends to the building, facilities, services and meaningful participation in religious activities.

For persons with disabilities, the right to worship cannot depend upon being carried, assisted or accommodated as an afterthought.

A ramp may provide entry. Accessibility must provide participation.

Read the Judgement

Suo Motu Case Nos. 237/1101/2018/05 and connected matters, Order dated 15 October 2019