Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench: New Delhi O.A. No.2066/2024 This the 12^th day of January, 2026 Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

Hon’ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)

Nitin Kumar S/o Sh. Ishwar Singh, Roll No.

174191170015498 age 30 years, R/o E AVAS VIKAS Second, Bulandhar, U.P. -203001 …Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. B K Barera)

Versus

1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Railway, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi

2. The Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board Cell, Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi-24

3 General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi …Respondents (By Advocates : Mr. Varun Vats)

ORDER (ORAL)

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

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

“(a) Quash the notice dated 02-02-2024 Informing ‘You have cleared the Cut-off for merit but suitable post as per your medical category is not available’as number of vacancies are available in LD Category.

(b) direction to respondents to Consider the case of the Applicant in accordance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 giving the applicant Reasonable accommodation/opportunity as per law settled by the Apex court in Vikash Kumar vs U.P.S.C (supra)

(c) Any other order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit under the present facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Learned counsel for the applicant is seeking appropriate relief on the ground that the respondents have failed to consider the case of the applicant in accordance with the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a person with disability and was entitled to the benefit of reasonable accommodation, which has not been granted by the respondents. It is contended that the action of the respondents is contrary to the statutory mandate of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vikas Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission & Ors., (2021) 5 SCC 370, wherein it has been held that denial of reasonable accommodation amounts to discrimination and violates the rights guaranteed under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. He further draws attention to an office order dated 16.12.2024, which is reproduced herein below:

"Board have reviewed the position of empanelment status of Level-1 Vacancies against various categories notified under CEN RRC 01/2019 and decided as follows:

(i) Candidates who have already been called for DV will be accommodated first by reserving vacancies for them.

(ii) No fresh DV will be initiated.

(ii) Railways may be advised to divert unfilled vacancies to lower medical categories only to the extent of availability (Column D) which is enclosed as Annexure.

(iv) Railways will empanel the remaining B2-C1 candidates in the order of merit from the main result against available vacancies by diverting them to Assistant (Workshop), Assistant TL&AC (Workshop) and Assistant Works (Workshop) and send the number of remaining candidates (Community-wise) to the Railway Board.

(v) Zonal Railways which don't have remaining B2-C1 candidates are advised to divert their available vacancies in all medical categories to notified lower medical category posts in the workshops. These railways will thereafter, advise the Board the availability of vacancies (community wise) after diversion to the aforementioned categories.

2. Urgent necessary action may please be taken as above and outcome reported to this office."

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the Original Application and reiterates the averments made in the counter affidavit. He submits that the Recruitment Rules are mandatory in nature. It is argued that no vacancy has been notified under the relevant reserved category and, therefore, the a