Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Manish Garg, Judicial Member, Rajinder Kashyap, Administrative Member
Samit Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| 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-Te
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
