The court reaffirmed the statutory obligation to reserve positions for candidates with benchmark disabilities, emphasizing that any exclusion must be justified by compelling grounds and proper consultation, ensuring equity in civil service opportunities.

ORDER

By Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):

In the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , the applicants seek the following reliefs:-

(i.) Direct Respondent Nos. 1 & 3 to reserve 0.5% posts forpersons with benchmark disabilities falling under category (d) as stipulated by Section 34 (1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 in the Civil Services Examinations;

(ii.) Direct Respondent No. 2 to identify posts suitable for persons with benchmark disabilities falling under category (d) as stipulated by Section 34 (1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 in the Civil Services;

(iii.) Direct Respondent Nos. 1 & 3 to provisionally reserve 0.5% vacancies for persons with disabilities falling under category (d) as stipulated by Section 34 (1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 in the 2024 Civil Services Examinations Cycle pending the outcome of the instant Original Application;

(iv.) Direct Respondent Nos. 1-3 to collectively work out the reasonable accommodations needed by persons with disabilities falling under category (d) as stipulated under Section 34 (1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 in the Civil Services Examinations and to give effect to the same; and (v.) Pass such other and further orders / directions as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case.”

2. Brief facts of the case as narrated by learned counsel for the applicants are as under:-

2.1 The present Original Application has been instituted by Ms. Molshree Aggarwal and Ms. Sonalika Aggarwal, both certified with benchmark disability, namely Specific Learning Disability (dyslexia), to the extent of more than forty per cent, duly recognised under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 . Learned counsel pointed out that despite this condition, the applicants have pursued their academics with remarkable merit. The applicant No.1 graduated in first division from Lady Shri Ram College and is presently pursuing her Master’s in Political Science; Applicant No.2 has recently graduated from St. Stephen’s College, University of Delhi, with distinction. Applicant No.1 has also gained significant professional experience having worked with Bloomberg Data Services for nearly six years, her intellectual abilities further reflected in an IQ score of 117.

2.2 Learned counsel submitted that both applicants are aspirants for the Civil Services Examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission. Applicant No.1 has appeared in the examination on more than one occasion, most recently in 2024, but has been denied the benefit of reservation owing to the systemic exclusion of her entire category of disability from the ambit of the Civil Services.

2.3 Learned counsel emphasised that Section 34 (1) of the RPwD Act, 2016 mandates reservation of not less than four per cent of vacancies in every Government establishment for persons with benchmark disabilities, with one per cent each earmarked for categories (a), (b), and (c), and one per cent jointly for categories (d) and (e). Category (d) specifically includes Specific Learning Disability. Thus, by statutory command, half a per cent of the vacancies in the Civil Services Examination must be reserved for persons such as the applicants. It is further submitted that the second proviso to Section 34 permits exemption only upon consultation with the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, and no such exemption has been sought or granted in the present matter.

2.4 Learned counsel further submitted that contrary to this statutory mandate, Respondent No.2, the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, by its notification dated 04.01.2021, failed to identify even a single post in the Civil Services as suitable for persons with learning disabilities, thereby abdicating its statutory duty under Section 33 of the Act. This illegality was then ca