The Supreme Court held that government authorities cannot deny appointment to candidates with benchmark disabilities by relying on outdated classifications of posts and must instead apply the latest notifications issued under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The Court directed that candidates suffering from specific learning disability and mental illness be considered for appointment to posts in the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India after finding that their candidature had been wrongly rejected based on an earlier list of identified posts that did not recognize these disabilities as eligible for the position of Auditor.
The case arose from the recruitment process conducted through the Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2018, which was organized by the Staff Selection Commission for appointments to several government posts including the position of Auditor in the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. The candidates who approached the Court were individuals with benchmark disabilities. One candidate suffered from specific learning disability while another was affected by mental illness. Despite successfully participating in the recruitment process, their candidature was rejected by the authorities on the ground that the post of Auditor had not been identified as suitable for persons with these particular disabilities under the earlier classification of posts.
The authorities relied on a list of identified posts for persons with benchmark disabilities that had been issued in 2013. This list specified which government posts were considered suitable for different categories of disabilities. However, under this earlier identification, the categories of mental illness and specific learning disability were not included among the disabilities eligible for appointment to the post of Auditor. On this basis, the authorities concluded that the candidates could not be appointed to the position even though they had cleared the recruitment process.
The candidates challenged this decision and relied on a later notification issued by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities under the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. This notification, issued in January 2021, revised the identification of posts suitable for persons with benchmark disabilities in accordance with the framework established under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The revised notification replaced the earlier list of identified posts and expanded the range of disabilities and government posts that could be considered suitable for reservation.
Under the revised notification, several Group C posts were identified as suitable for persons with benchmark disabilities, including individuals suffering from mental illness and specific learning disability. This revised identification expanded the categories of disabilities eligible for reservation in a number of government posts and reflected the broader approach adopted under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act to ensure inclusion and equal opportunity in public employment.
The Supreme Court examined the effect of the 2021 notification and the manner in which the authorities had considered the candidature of the applicants. During the proceedings, the Court took note of an additional affidavit filed by the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. In the affidavit, the authority acknowledged that under the 2021 notification, certain Group C posts such as Assistant (Audit) and Auditor-II had been identified as suitable for persons with benchmark disabilities, including those suffering from mental illness and specific learning disability.
The Court observed that once the revised notification had expanded the identification of posts suitable for persons with benchmark disabilities, the authorities were required to apply the updated framework when evaluating the eligibility of candidates. The Court found that the rejection of the candidates’ candidature based solely on the earlier classification of posts issued in 2013 was not justified in light of the revised policy framework.
According to the Court, relying on an outdated identification of posts would undermine the objectives of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, which seeks to promote equality, non-discrimination, and inclusion for persons with disabilities in various spheres of public life, including employment. The Court emphasized that when the government issues a new notification expanding the categories of disabilities eligible for certain posts, the authorities responsible for recruitment must give effect to those changes.
The Court therefore concluded that the authorities had erred in rejecting the candidature of the applicants on the basis of the earlier list of identified posts. Since the 2021 notification had expanded the identification of posts suitable for persons with benchmark disabilities and included Group C posts such as Assistant (Audit) and Auditor-II, the candidates were entitled to be considered for appointment in accordance with the revised framework.
After considering the legal and factual issues involved in the case, the Supreme Court issued directions to ensure that the claims of the candidates were examined in accordance with the updated notification. The Court directed the Staff Selection Commission to forward the dossiers of the candidates to the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India within a specified time. The authority was then directed to consider their appointment to appropriate Group C posts in accordance with the eligibility criteria laid down in the revised notification.
The Court also addressed the possibility that the vacancies originally advertised during the recruitment process might already have been filled. In such a situation, the Court directed the authorities to create supernumerary posts in order to accommodate the candidates whose candidature had been wrongly rejected. This direction was issued to ensure that the candidates would not lose the opportunity for employment due to the incorrect application of the eligibility criteria during the recruitment process.
Through its judgment, the Supreme Court emphasized that recruitment authorities must apply the most recent and legally valid identification of posts when dealing with reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities. The Court reiterated that the legal framework governing disability rights requires authorities to adopt an inclusive approach and ensure that persons with disabilities are not excluded from employment opportunities due to outdated or incorrect interpretations of eligibility criteria.
The ruling clarified that once the government expands the identification of posts suitable for persons with benchmark disabilities through a new notification, authorities must take those changes into account when assessing the eligibility of candidates in recruitment processes. By directing the authorities to reconsider the candidature of the applicants and ensure their appointment in accordance with the revised notification, the Court reinforced the principle that policies governing public employment must align with the current legal framework designed to protect the rights of persons with disabilities.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.