Proper identification of posts for appointment of candidates with disabilities is mandated to ensure effective reservation under the relevant statute.

Amit Rawal, J.

JUDGMENT

1. Present O.P(CAT) is directed against the judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal dated 02.11.2023 rendered in O.A.No.325 of 2022 whereby, despite having given observation in favour of the applicant, the Tribunal did not grant the following reliefs: (i) Direct the 2^nd respondent to recommend candidates from the selection done for all the available 45 posts under the category PwD-Others.

(ii) Direct the 2^nd respondent to make necessary modifications in Annexure A8 final selection list recommending candidates for all the available 45 posts under the category PwD-Others and to consider the candidature of the applicant based on his first option as reflected in Annexure A6;

(iv) To issue such other order or direction as this Hon’ble Tribunal made deem fit in the facts and circumstances of this case.

(v) To award costs to the applicant.”

2. Succinctly the facts in brief for adjudication of the controversy are enumerated hereinbelow:

In pursuance of the selection process initiated by the Staff Selection Commission for appointment of Group C posts in various departments of the Central Government, had taken steps for recruitment after having undergone the test of Combined Graduate Level Examination which was held in 2019 for Karnataka/Kerala Region. Vide Annexure- A3, final vacancy list was prepared and in column relating to the Persons with Disability, as many as forty five (45) vacancies were indicated. As per the reply of respondents, seventy five (75) candidates applied under the aforementioned category, fifty(50) were rejected and ten(10) were selected. It is pertinent to mention here that all the posts which were sought to be filled, were having different Codes. Petitioner had applied for Code B06, B10 and D34 i.e., Assistant Section Officer in Ministry of External Affairs, Assistant Section Officer in Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and lastly, Auditor in Controller General of Defence Accounts. As per Annexure-A8, the cut off details under List No.3 was meant for all the posts other than post which the applicant had applied for. Similarly for Code No.B10, the one which the petitioner had applied, there was no reservation. In Code B10, there were three(3) vacancies which have been filled up and the last candidate have secured cut off marks of 427, whereas the applicant – petitioner had scored 257.339. The cut off mark for PWD candidates was 246.15237, as per Annexure-A5.

3. Section 34 of the Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act , 2016, provides that the appropriate Government shall appoint in every Government establishment not less than 4% of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength in each group of posts meant to be filled up with the persons with benchmark disabilities, of which one percent each shall be reserved for the persons with benchmark disabilities falling under Clause (a), (b) and (c) and one percent for Clause(d) and (e). The details of which are given as under:

“(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 learning disability and mental illness;

(e) multiple disabilities from amongst persons under clauses (a) to (d) including deaf-blindness in the posts identified for each disabilities:”

4. Concededly, petitioner – applicant falls under the category (d) and (e) as, he is suffering from specific learning disability, as per the disability certificate. Learned Tribunal, noticing the aforementioned grievance and predicament of the Persons with Disabilities for having no