Valid benchmark disability certificate with validity period entitles reservation under RPwD Act in direct recruitment, regardless of 'temporary' label; executive instructions cannot override statute distinguishing permanent/temporary disabilities.

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