Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a recruitment process initiated in 2018 by the Staff Selection Commission to fill Group 'B' and 'C' posts, including two vacancies for 'Auditor' in the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India under the 'Other PwD' category. Respondent No. 3, applied under the 'Persons with Disabilities - Other' category, possessing a disability certificate for mental illness with 55% disability, and successfully cleared the examination stages, being recommended for appointment. However, his dossier was returned by the CAG on the ground that the post was not suitable for persons with benchmark disabilities suffering from mental illness, leading to rejection of his candidature. Respondent No. 3 challenged this before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which directed the CAG to constitute a Medical Board for fitness assessment. The CAG appealed to the High Court, which set aside the Tribunal's order. The appellant, a PwD candidate with specific learning disability, intervened, fearing adverse impact on his pending case. The Supreme Court granted leave and heard arguments. The core legal issue was whether the appellant and respondent No. 3 were entitled to appointment under the RPwD Act, 2016, considering the Gazette Notification dated 4th January 2021. The appellant's counsel and the Additional Solicitor General argued for accommodation based on the notification. The court examined the notification, which identified Group C posts, including 'Auditor', as suitable for persons with benchmark disabilities of specific learning disability and mental illness, superseding previous lists. In response, the CAG filed an additional affidavit expressing willingness to accommodate the candidates in suitable Group C posts upon recommendation from the SSC. The court's analysis centered on compliance with Sections 33 and 34 of the RPwD Act, 2016, and the binding nature of the notification. It held that the candidates were entitled to appointment as per the notification and directed the CAG to accommodate them in the identified posts, ensuring their rights under the disability law were upheld.
Headnote
A) Disability Law - Reservation and Appointment - Persons with Benchmark Disabilities - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Sections 33, 34 - Appellant and respondent No. 3, persons with benchmark disabilities, were recommended for appointment to the post of 'Auditor' but their dossiers were returned as the post was initially not identified as suitable for their disabilities - The Supreme Court considered the Gazette Notification dated 4th January 2021, which identified the post as suitable for persons with benchmark disabilities of specific learning disability and mental illness - Held that the appellant and respondent No. 3 are entitled to appointment in Group C posts identified as suitable under the notification, and directed respondent No. 1 to accommodate them accordingly (Paras 16-18). -- B) Administrative Law - Recruitment Process - Compliance with Notifications - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Sections 33, 34 - The recruitment process for Group 'B' and 'C' posts under the Staff Selection Commission's Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2018, included vacancies for 'Auditor' under the 'Other PwD' category - Respondent No. 3 successfully cleared all stages and was recommended, but his candidature was rejected based on initial identification of the post as unsuitable for mental illness - The Supreme Court noted that the Gazette Notification dated 4th January 2021 superseded previous lists and identified the post as suitable, thereby entitling the candidates to appointment - Held that respondent No. 1 must comply with the notification and appoint the candidates upon receipt of recommendations from respondent No. 2 (Paras 5-9, 17-18).
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: Whether the appellant and respondent No. 3, as persons with benchmark disabilities, are entitled to appointment to the post of 'Auditor' under the RPwD Act, 2016, in light of the Gazette Notification dated 4th January 2021
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
Final Decision
The Supreme Court directed respondent No. 1 to accommodate the appellant and respondent No. 3 in Group C posts identified as suitable under the Gazette Notification dated 4th January 2021, upon receipt of recommendations from respondent No. 2
