SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(SC) 253

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Sudhanshu Kardam – Appellant
Versus
Comptroller and Auditor General of India and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3348 of 2026 [Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No.............of 2026] [Diary No. 43728 of 2025]
Decided On : 12-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Rahul Bajaj, Adv. Ms. Sarah, Adv. Mr. Ayyam Perumal Karthik M., AOR Mr. Kathiravan N, Adv.
For the Respondents: Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. Mr. Vaibhav Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Jain, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Adv. Mr. Kamal Digpaul, Adv. Ms. Harshita Choubey, Adv. Mr. Mahendra Kumawat, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. Anil Kaushik, A.S.G. Pranjal Singh, Adv. Aashna Gill, Adv. Nachiketa Joshi, Adv. Diwakar Sharma, Adv. Aastha Singh, Adv. Mr. Yogesh Vats, Adv. Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR Rajeshwari Shankar, Adv. Padmesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. S.n.terdal(aor), Adv.

Candidates with benchmark disabilities are entitled to consideration for appointment in suitable posts as per the updated notifications under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.

Headnote:(A) Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Sections 33 and 34 - Suitability of posts for persons with disabilities - Candidates with specific learning disabilities and mental illness entitled to consideration for appropriate categorization within Group ‘C’ posts following the 2021 notification. (Paras 17-21)

(B) Judicial review and appropriate representation - Tribunal's direction for assessing fitness upheld, ensuring alignment with government notifications regarding benchmark disabilities. (Paras 12, 21)

Facts of the case:
In 2018, vacancies for Group ‘B’ and ‘C’ posts were announced, including for an Auditor position. Candidature of an applicant, suffering from mental illness, was initially accepted but later rejected due to ineligibility concerning benchmark disabilities as per government notifications. Subsequent legal challenges were made to seek recourse through the CAT and High Court. (Paras 5-10)

Findings of Court:
The Court found that both candidates, the appellant and another applicant, should be considered for Group ‘C’ posts as per the revised eligibility criteria under the 2021 notification, allowing their appointment subject to the prior recommendation from the SSC. (Paras 19-21)

Issues: The critical issues involve the determination of eligible candidates within the new framework of the RPwD Act and the adequacy of procedural adherence in considering the applications. (Paras 10, 17)

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the amended rules under the RPwD Act allow for the accommodation of candidates with specified disabilities in suitable positions, mandating a review of candidacies based on updated criteria. (Paras 17-21)

Result: Appeal disposed of; directions issued for taking necessary actions for appointment.

Table of Content
1. eligibility criteria for appointment as auditor (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
2. tribunal's directive for medical board evaluation (Para 12 , 14 , 15)
3. high court's authority to overturn tribunal decisions (Para 13 , 17 , 19)
4. cag's compliance for appointments based on notifications (Para 18 , 20 , 21)
5. dissolution of appeal and order for appointments (Para 22 , 23)

ORDER :

1. Heard.

2. Application for impleadment is allowed.

3. Leave granted.

4. The instant appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated 29th May, 2025 passed by the High Court of Delhi1 [Hereinafter, referred to as the “High Court”] in Writ Petition (C) No. 5904 of 2023.

5. In the year 2018, respondent No. 2-Staff Selection Commission2 [For short ‘SSC’] initiated a process to fill various Group ‘B’ and Group ‘C’ posts in different Ministries/Departments/Organisations under the Government of India. Pursuant to the tentative list of vacancies determined on 27th December, 2019, the Common Graduate Level Examination-20183 [For short ‘CGLE-2018’] vacancies were notified, wherein two vacancies were earmarked for the post of ‘Auditor’ in the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India4 [For short ‘CAG’] under the ‘Other PwD’ category.

6. Shri Amit Yadav, respondent No. 3 herein, was an aspirant for the post of ‘Auditor’ (Post Code D33) in the Staff Selection Commission’s Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2018.5 [For short ‘SSC CGLE’] He applied under the category of Persons with Disabilities - Other6 [For short ‘Other PwD’] as well as under the Other Backward Class category in the said examination.

7. He was possessed of a valid disability certificate dated 2nd May, 2018 issued by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities7 [For short ‘DEPwd’] Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, as per which he was suffering from ‘mental illness’, with the degree of disability assessed at 55%.

8. R3 - Shri Amit Yadav successfully cleared the Tier-I and Tier-II stages of the SSC CGLE-2018. Thereafter, the Tier-III stage was conducted and the result thereof was declared on 30th September, 2020, qualifying candidates for the Skill Test/Document Verification stage, i.e., Tier-IV (the final round of the said examination). He was thereafter required to indicate his preference for eligible posts, and accordingly, he opted for the post of ‘Auditor’ (Post Code D33). The final list of vacancies was uploaded on the website on 15th March, 2021, pursuant to which R3- Shri Amit Yadav was recommended for appointment to the post of ‘Auditor’ (D33).

9. On 28th September, 2021, the CAG declared a State/Office Allocation List. It was indicated in the said list that the dossiers of certain candidates, including that of R3 - Shri Amit Yadav, were being returned to the SSC on the ground that the post of ‘Auditor’ had been identified as not suitable for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities8 [For short ‘PwBD’] suffering from ‘mental illness’, the category against which R3 - Shri Amit Yadav had applied and was recommended. The rejection of the candidature of R3 - Shri Amit Yadav was thereafter formally communicated to him by a letter dated 30th September, 2021.

10. Being aggrieved, R3 - Shri Amit Yadav submitted a detailed representation dated 29th September, 2021 to the SSC, asserting that the rejection of his candidature was arbitrary. He also lodged two grievances before the Department of Personnel and Training9 [For short ‘DoPT’] on 8th October, 2021, followed by an e-mail dated 23rd October, 2021 reiterating his eligibility and requesting reconsideration of his case for appointment in the subject recruitment process. However, no affirmative response was forthcoming, upon which, R3 - Shri Amit Yadav preferred Original Application No. 339 of 2022 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi Bench10 [Hereinafter, referred to as the “CAT’] seeking appointment by invoking the provisions of the Rights of Persons wi

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top