Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1658
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Manish Garg, Judicial Member, Rajinder Kashyap, Administrative Member
Samit Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A. No.2555/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. S. N. Sharma
For the Respondents: Mr. Hilal Haider
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Disability Reservation
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Role of recruiting agency - Held: Recruiting agency proper party despite user department's rejection decision, to ensure effective implementation. (Paras 7-8, 19)
Facts of the case:
Applicant applied for Multi-Tasking Staff post under PwBD category claiming reservation for mental illness with 70% benchmark disability certified by competent authority, valid till 03.11.2026. Qualified exam, candidature forwarded, but rejected by user department via order dated 14.05.2025 solely because certificate not permanent, relying on executive clarifications.
Findings of Court:
Impugned order quashed; applicant referred to Medical Board at specified institute for reassessment within 6 weeks; if found eligible, appoint within 4 weeks with notional seniority/pay fixation (no arrears).
Issues: Whether valid benchmark disability certificate with validity period can be denied reservation in direct recruitment solely for being non-permanent; applicability of promotion guidelines to direct recruitment; overriding effect of executive instructions on statute.
Ratio Decidendi: Welfare legislation like RPwD Act merits purposive interpretation; benchmark disability certified as ≥40% valid during subsistence irrespective of 'temporary' label for reassessment; cannot deny benefits based on executive instructions contradicting statute or post-recruitment rule change; lifelong mental conditions qualify despite treatability.
Result: Original Application allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant's pwbd candidature rejected due to temporary certificate. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. rpwd act does not require permanent disability; bpad is lifelong. (Para 4 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. temporary certificates ineligible per dopt/depwd guidelines for recruitment. (Para 5 , 7) |
| 4. valid temporary benchmark certificate entitles reservation; executive orders cannot override rpwd act. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. quash rejection; direct medical reassessment and appointment consideration. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
O R D E R
Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):
1.By filing the present O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:-
"(a) Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 14.05.2025 so issued by the respondents.
(b) Direct the Respondents to appoint the Applicant to the said post in the PwBD category with all consequential benefits, including seniority and notional pay fixation.
(c) Pass such further orders as may be deemed just and proper in the interest of justice."
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. As stated by the applicant, he applied for appointment to the post of Multi-Tasking Staff (Non-Technical) pursuant to the recruitment process conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) under the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) category, claiming reservation on account of Mental Illness (Bipolar Affective Disorder).The applicant was examined by a competent medical authority and was issued a disability certificate certifying benchmark disability of more than 40%, valid up to 03.11.2026. The said certificate was valid and subsisting at all material stages of the recruitment process. The applicant qualified the examination and his candidature was processed and forwarded by SSC to the user department for appointment.
2.1 However, vide impugned communication dated 14.05.2025, the candidature of the applicant was rejected on the ground that the disability certificate submitted by him was not a permanent disability certificate, but was valid for a specified period.
2.2 The applicant submitted representations contending that neither the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 nor the Rules framed thereunder require a disability to be permanent for availing reservation benefits, and that a valid benchmark disability certificate cannot be ignored.
2.3 As no relief was granted by the respondents, the applicant has approached this Tribunal by filing the present Original Application seeking quashing of the impugned rejection and consequential consideration for appointment under the PwBD category.
3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have filed reply opposing the claim of the applicant.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT
4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that:-
4.1 The respondents failed to consider the facts while cancelling the candidature of the applicant on the basis of the policy dated 20.01.2025 which is certainly non-application of mind.
4.2 The respondents further failed to consider the facts while cancelling the candidature of the applicant at the time of document verification stage, as the respondents itself mentioned about the effect of the policy dated 20.01.2025 about the temporary certificate of disability admittedly that the said certificate will not make the employee eligible for reservation in promotion, however the present case is a case of fresh recruitment/appointment.
4.3 The cancellation of candidature of the applicant is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), particularly Section 2(r)which defines “person with benchmark disability” to include persons with at least 40% of a specified disability, regardless of whether such disability is permanent or temporary, however the applicant has 70% disability as per Disability Certificate issuedby competent authority under Rule 18(3) of the Rights of Personswith Disabilities Rules, 2017.
4
