State disability policies must be interpreted in a purposive, non-discriminatory manner, granting reasonable accommodations to candidates with different types of disabilities if their condition inherently precludes performance in the same way as exempted categories, particularly where vacant posts remain.

***

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J.(Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 15.01.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Tribunal, wherein the direction has been given to the petitioner to appoint respondent on the post of Clerk as advertised on 29.09.2019.

2. Certain facts needs to be mentioned for the correct appreciation of the issue in hand.

3. The petitioner issued an advertisement for appointment to the post of Clerk and Steno Typist (English) on 29.09.2019. Out of the total 356 posts advertised, 14 were to be filled from the category of the persons having physical disability. The criteria for selection to said posts was that the candidate was required to clear a written test consisting of objective question and then, a typing test on the computer with the speed of 35 words per minute, which typing test was to be conducted for a duration of ten minutes.

4. The respondent applied against 14 posts reserved for the physically handicap as she was suffering from low vision, which disability falls in the category envisaged to be eligible to compete for the 14 posts reserved for physically handicapped candidates. The respondent cleared the written examination and she was called for the type test. Before appearing for the type test, the respondent through her father gave a representation that she should be given a scribe so that the content needed to be typed, could be dictated to her so that she be able to understand what content is needed to be typed so as to qualify the said typing test.

5. The benefit sought of allotting scribe to respondent was declined on the ground that the said request is to be made at the initial stage and not immediately before the date when the typing test is to be conducted. Though, the respondent was given time as applicable to the other, who were competing in the category of physically handicap to undergo the typing test, but as per the petitioner, she failed to clear the type test due to which, her candidature for appointment to the post of Clerk against one of the 14 vacancies advertised for physically handicapped persons came to an end.

6. It may be noticed that even as of now, all of such14 posts advertised to be filled in the reserved category of physically handicap could not be filled up as two posts in the said category are still lying vacant after considering the claim of all eligibles.

7. The respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal with the grievance that she has not been given proper opportunity to compete against one of the 14 post reserved for physical handicap category as, she was not provided with a scribe so as to assist her by dictating the content to be typed to her which led to non-passing of the type test, whereas, benefit of exemption to not appear in typing test has been given to large number of candidates in the said category itself, hence, such benefit of exemption should have been granted to the respondent as well so as to treat her having qualified for the post.

8. The petitioner appeared before the Tribunal and conceded the fact which has been mentioned hereinbefore to the extent that the respondent was allowed to appear in the type test, but she failed to pass the same and also that large number of candidates in the category of physically handicap were given exemption from appearing in the type test, who were orthopedically disabled to appear in the type test.

9. The plea taken before the Tribunal by the petitioner was that as per the instructions issued by the competent authority dated 22.04.2015, which deals wi