Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi Order reserved on: 19.11.2025 Order pronounced on: 12.12.2025 Hon’ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)

Hon’ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)

Miss Preeti Vaid, age 32 years, D/o Late Sh Gopal Datt Sharma, R/o C-208, Paryavaran Complex, Saidulajab, New Delhi-110030.

....Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. R.K.Handoo)

Versus

1. Union of India Through Secretary, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. 2. The Secretary, Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Room No.11 (B-I), Antyodaya Bhawan, SCOPE Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.

... Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. Subhash Gosai with Ms. Anushree Kapadia)

ORDER By Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)

The present OA has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:

“8.1 Direct the respondents to appoint the Applicant in the government establishment against the vacancies reserved for Persons with Disabilities as per The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and Rules, and/or

8.2 Any other order which the Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Factual matrix

2.1 The Staff Selection Commission (SSC) advertised notice on 23.12.2021, inviting applications for Combined Level Graduate Examination, 2021 for posts reserved for Persons with Disabilities (PWD). The present applicant applied in response to the said advertisement notice through online mode claiming PWD status because he was suffering from Multiple Sclerosis of Brain and low vision in both eyes. The applicant went through various stages of the tests like First Tier on 20.4.2022, Second Tier on 8.8.2022 and Third Tier on 21.8.2022 and Skill Test on 24.01.2023. After clearing all these examinations, the applicant was called for verification of documents on 31.01.2023. The candidature of the applicant was rejected with the remarks that “Multiple Sclerosis Disease not Admissible for Reservation” (Annexure-A1). The applicant submitted a representation through her counsel claiming that the respondents had erroneously rejected her case for reservation on the basis of inadmissibility of Multiple Sclerosis as a valid case for reservation for PWD candidates. Vide result notice dated 13.5.2023 SCC declared the final results, where the applicant did not find her name as one of the selected candidates. Being aggrieved, she has filed the present Original Application seeking the aforementioned relief.

3. Notices were issued to the respondents and they have filed their counter reply.

4. Submission by the Learned Counsel for the Applicant 4.1 The learned counsel for the applicant avers that the respondents have erroneously rejected the candidature of the present applicant stating that Multiple Sclerosis is not included as a Benchmark disability to get benefit of reservation for PWD candidates. He states that the SSC- Respondent No.1 has wrongly interpreted the inclusion/ exclusion of multiple disabilities qualifying for benchmark disability(ies). As per Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Reservation for the following categories of persons with benchmark Disabilities (40% or more) has been included:

“(a) blindness and low vision (b) deaf and hard of hearing (c) locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy.

(d) autism, intellectual disability, specific learing disability and mental illness (e) multiple disabilities from amongst persons under clauses (a) to (d) including deaf, blindness in the psots identified for each disabilities.”

4.2 The learned counsel for the applicant states that the present candidate falls under category (e) as mentioned under Section 34 of the PWD Act, 2016. He refers to the communication dated 23.3.2023 by Respondent No.2 , which has referred to Section 58 of the said