Delhi HC Scrutinizes Exclusion of Blind Candidates from Medical Services Exam

New Delhi – The Delhi High Court has directed its focus on a critical issue of disability rights, issuing a notice to the Union Government and the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) in response to a petition challenging the complete exclusion of blind and low-vision candidates from reservations in the Combined Medical Services Examination (CMSE). The plea argues this exclusion is a "direct and blatant violation" of a key statutory mandate, sparking a significant legal debate on the scope of inclusivity within the country's public healthcare sector.

A division bench, comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, took cognizance of the writ petition filed by 'Mission Accessibility,' a disability rights organization. The Court has sought detailed responses from the UPSC, the Union of India through the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT), the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DoEPWD), and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, placing the government's implementation of disability law under judicial scrutiny.

The case, titled MISSION ACCESSIBILITY v. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS , brings to the forefront the interpretation and enforcement of Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act).

The Core of the Contention: A Statutory Mandate Ignored

The petition, filed through Advocates Amritesh Mishra and Sarah on behalf of Mission Accessibility and its non-executive director, lawyer Rahul Bajaj, centers on the alleged non-compliance with Section 34 of the RPwD Act. This crucial provision mandates that all government establishments reserve a minimum of 4% of total vacancies for persons with benchmark disabilities. Critically, it sub-divides this quota, stipulating that a minimum of 1% each must be reserved for individuals with: (a) Blindness and low vision; (b) Deaf and hard of hearing; (c) Locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims, and muscular dystrophy.

The petitioners assert that the UPSC, the conducting body for the CMSE, has systematically failed to adhere to this statutory obligation. The plea highlights stark data from recent examination notices to substantiate its claim. "The Examination Notices for CMSE-2024 and CMSE-2025 reveal that not a single post—out of 827 and 705 vacancies respectively—has been reserved for blind or low vision candidates," the petition states.

This omission is not an oversight but a systemic exclusion, the petitioners argue, pointing out that reservations are indeed provided for other disability categories, such as locomotor disabilities. The plea questions the rationale for this selective application of the law, stating there is "no valid basis for the exclusion of those with blindness and low vision."

A Tangible Impact: The Case of the Qualified Candidate

The legal challenge is not merely academic. The petition presents a compelling real-world example of the policy's detrimental effect. A member of the petitioner organization, a qualified doctor with blindness or low vision, appeared for the CMSE-2024. Despite achieving the minimum qualifying marks required for the broader "Persons with Benchmark Disabilities" category, this candidate was not shortlisted for the crucial interview stage. The reason cited was the lack of any reserved vacancies for their specific disability category, effectively creating an insurmountable barrier to their career progression in public service.

This instance forms the crux of the argument that the absence of reservation translates into direct discrimination, preventing otherwise meritorious candidates from competing for public employment solely on the basis of their disability.

Broader Implications: Questioning Preconceived Notions in Medicine

Beyond the strict legal arguments, the petition advances a powerful policy and social justice rationale. It challenges long-held, and often unsubstantiated, assumptions about the capabilities of medical professionals with visual impairments.

“In a country where there is a well-acknowledged shortage of medical professionals, there is no rational basis to exclude doctors with blindness or low vision—especially those who have duly completed their MBBS degrees and compulsory internships—from service opportunities,” the plea eloquently argues.

The petitioners contend that with the provision of "reasonable accommodations"—such as assistive technologies, scribes for administrative tasks, or allocation to roles in fields like psychiatry, research, or public health administration—these doctors can perform essential duties effectively. The failure to identify suitable posts and provide such accommodations, they argue, is not just a policy lapse but a failure to uphold the spirit of the RPwD Act, which champions integration and equal opportunity.

The Relief Sought: A Call for Systemic Change

Mission Accessibility has sought comprehensive reliefs from the High Court that go beyond a simple declaration of rights. The primary prayers include:

• Identification of Posts: A directive to the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DoEPWD) to urgently undertake the exercise of identifying all posts within the Combined Medical Services that can be held by persons with blindness and low vision.
• Provision of Reasonable Accommodations: A direction to the DoPT, DoEPWD, and the Ministry of Health to collaborate and formulate a framework for the "reasonable accommodations" required by these professionals and to ensure their provision.
• Implementation of Reservation: A writ of mandamus compelling the respondents to implement the 1% reservation for blind and low-vision candidates in all future CMSE examinations, in line with Section 34 of the RPwD Act.

The outcome of this litigation could have far-reaching consequences. For legal practitioners in service and constitutional law, it represents a pivotal test of the state's commitment to the RPwD Act, eight years after its enactment. A favorable ruling could compel a nationwide re-evaluation of posts identified as suitable for persons with various disabilities across different government services, particularly in technical and specialized fields. It would reaffirm the judiciary's role in transforming statutory rights from paper promises into lived realities, ensuring that the doors to public service are truly open to all, regardless of disability. The High Court's next hearing, after the respondents file their counters, will be keenly watched by the legal and medical communities alike.