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]