Sudhanshu Kardam vs Comptroller And Auditor General Of India

2026 INSC 232
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No (s). of 2026)
(Diary No. 43728/2025)

SUDHANSHU KARDAM …. APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR
GENERAL OF INDIA AND ORS. ..RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

1. Heard.
2. Application for impleadment is allowed.
3. Leave granted.
4. The instant appeal by special leave arises from
th
the judgment and order dated 29 May, 2025 passed
1
by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.
5904 of 2023.
5. In the year 2018, respondent No.2 - Staff
2
Selection Commission initiated a process to fill
various Group ‘B’ and Group ‘C’ posts in different
Signature Not Verified

1
Hereinafter, referred to as the “High Court”.
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2026.03.12
17:22:25 IST
Reason:
2
For short, ‘SSC’.
1

Ministries/Departments/Organisations under the
Government of India. Pursuant to the tentative list
th
of vacancies determined on 27 December, 2019, the
3
Common Graduate Level Examination-2018
vacancies were notified, wherein two vacancies were
earmarked for the post of ‘Auditor’ in the office of the
4
Comptroller and Auditor General of India under the
‘Other PwD’ category.
6. Shri Amit Yadav, respondent No. 3 herein, was
an aspirant for the post of ‘Auditor’ (Post Code D33)
in the Staff Selection Commission’s Combined
5
Graduate Level Examination, 2018 . He applied
under the category of ‘Persons with Disabilities -
6
Other ’ as well as under the Other Backward Class
category in the said examination.
7. He was possessed of a valid disability certificate
nd
dated 2 May, 2018 issued by the Department of
7
Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities , Ministry
of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of

3
For short, ‘CGLE-2018’.
4
For short, ‘CAG’.
5
For short, ‘SSC CGLE’.
6
For short, ‘Other PwD’.
7
For short, ‘DEPwd’.
2

India, as per which he was suffering from ‘mental
illness’, with the degree of disability assessed at 55%.
8. R3 - Shri Amit Yadav successfully cleared the
Tier-I and Tier-II stages of the SSC CGLE-2018.
Thereafter, the Tier-III stage was conducted and the
th
result thereof was declared on 30 September, 2020,
qualifying candidates for the Skill Test/Document
Verification stage, i.e., Tier-IV (the final round of the
said examination). He was thereafter required to
indicate his preference for eligible posts, and
accordingly, he opted for the post of ‘Auditor’ (Post
Code D33). The final list of vacancies was uploaded
th
on the website on 15 March, 2021, pursuant to
which R3- Shri Amit Yadav was recommended for
appointment to the post of ‘Auditor’ (D33).
th
9. On 28 September, 2021, the CAG declared a
State/Office Allocation List. It was indicated in the
said list that the dossiers of certain candidates,
including that of R3 – Shri Amit Yadav, were being
returned to the SSC on the ground that the post of
‘Auditor’ had been identified as not suitable for
8
Persons with Benchmark Disabilities suffering from

8
For short, ‘PwBD’.
3

‘mental illness’, the category against which R3 – Shri
Amit Yadav had applied and was recommended. The
rejection of the candidature of R3 – Shri Amit Yadav
was thereafter formally communicated to him by a
th
letter dated 30 September, 2021.
10. Being aggrieved, R3 – Shri Amit Yadav
th
submitted a detailed representation dated 29
September, 2021 to the SSC, asserting that the
rejection of his candidature was arbitrary. He also
lodged two grievances before the Department of
9 th
Personnel and Training on 8 October, 2021,
rd
followed by an e-mail dated 23 October, 2021
reiterating his eligibility and requesting
reconsideration of his case for appointment in the
subject recruitment process. However, no affirmative
response was forthcoming, upon which, R3 – Shri
Amit Yadav preferred Original Application No.339 of
2022 before the Central Administrative Tribunal,
10
Delhi Bench , seeking appointment by invoking the
provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
11
Act, 2016 .

9
For short, ‘DoPT’,
10
Hereinafter, referred to as the “CAT’.
11
For short, ‘RPwD Act’.
4

11. In the proceedings before CAT, R3 – Shri Amit
Yadav relied upon Gazette Notification No.38-
th
16/2020-DD-III dated 4 January, 2021 issued by
the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment,
DEPwD. It was his case that the said notification
expressly included ‘mental illness’ benchmark
disability as suitable for the post of ‘Auditor’.
12. The Tribunal allowed the said Original
rd
Application by the final order dated 23 January,
2023, directing respondent No.1 - CAG to constitute
a Medical Board for assessing the fitness of R3 – Shri
Amit Yadav to discharge the duties associated with
the post of ‘Auditor’. The Tribunal further directed
that in the event R3 – Shri Amit Yadav is found fit by
the Medical Board, he shall be offered appointment
to the post in question.
13. Respondent No.1-CAG assailed the said order
by filing the captioned writ petition before the High
Court. The Division Bench of the High Court
interfered with the order passed by the Tribunal and
set aside the same. Consequently, the official
th
communication dated 30 September, 2021,
whereby the dossier of R3 – Shri Amit Yadav had been
returned, stood restored.
5

14. The appellant herein, being a PwD candidate
placed at par with R3 – Shri Amit Yadav and claiming
to be meritorious and belonging to the Scheduled
Caste category suffering from Specific Learning
Disability (SLD) of mixed scholastic skills, assessed
at more than 40%, thereby falling under Category ‘D’
benchmark disabilities, filed an application bearing
CM Appl No.9669 of 2024 before the High Court
seeking impleadment/intervention in W.P. (C) No.
5904 of 2023. The appellant asserted inter alia in the
I.A. that he had assailed the very same
th
communication dated 30 September, 2021 by filing
O.A. No. 2563 of 2021 before the CAT, which was
pending consideration. He thus apprehended that
the disposal of W.P. (C) No.5904 of 2023 by the High
Court might have an adverse bearing on his pending
original application before the CAT. The I.A was
th
allowed vide order dated 16 February, 2024.
15. Be that as it may, pursuant to the writ petition
having been allowed by the High Court judgment
vide
th
and order dated 29 May, 2025, the appellant-
Sudhanshu Kardam approached this Court by way of
an application seeking permission to file the special
leave petition.
6

16. Notice was issued on the application seeking
permission to file the special leave petition, as well as
on the special leave petition and the application for
th
impleadment, on 13 August, 2025. Thereafter,
th
arguments were heard in extenso on 6 January,
2026, on which date this Court passed the following
order: –
“1. We have heard Mr. Rahul Bajaj, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Ms. Archana Pathak
Dave, learned Additional Solicitor General for
respondent no.1, and also Mr. Amit Yadav,
respondent no.3, who appears in-person through
video conferencing.

2. After detailed arguments, Ms. Archana Pathak
Dave, learned Additional Solicitor General, sought
two weeks’ time to obtain instructions in the matter
with regard to accommodating the petitioner and
respondent no.3 in appropriate categories in light of
the notification dated 04.01.2021 issued by Ministry
of Social Justice and Empowerment.”

17. Ex facie , upon hearing the submissions
advanced by Mr. Rahul Bajaj, learned counsel
representing the appellant, and Ms. Archana Pathak
Dave, learned ASG, this Court was satisfied that the
appellant herein could be considered for appointment
in the appropriate category in light of the Gazette
7

th
Notification dated 4 January, 2021 issued by the
Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment,
DEPwD ( Divyangjan ), which is reproduced below:-
“MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND
EMPOWERMENT
[Department of Empowerment of Persons
with Disabilities (Divyangjan)]
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 4th January, 2021
No. 38-16/2020-DD-III — Whereas Section 33 of
the repealed Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter, after referred
as repealed Act) provided for reservation of not less
than 3% for persons with disabilities in the three
categories namely, (i) locomotor disability including
cerebral palsy, (ii) visual impairment (low vision &
blindness) and (iii) hearing impairment.

2. And whereas, section 32 of the repealed Act
mandated the appropriate Government to identify
posts to be reserved for persons with disabilities
and review such list at periodic interval not
exceeding three years.

3. And whereas, in pursuance of the above
provisions of the repealed Act, the Central
Government last notified the list of posts suitable
for persons with disabilities through notification
No. 16-15/2010-DD-III dated 29th July, 2013.

4. And whereas, the Ministry of Social Justice and
Empowerment, Government of India, in pursuance
of the provisions of sections 32 and 33 of the
8

repealed Act (since repealed on 15.06.2017) had
constituted an Expert Committee on the 19th
November, 2015 under the chairpersonship of the
Secretary, Department of Empowerment of Persons
with Disabilities to review the list of Central
Government posts identified suitable for Persons
with Disabilities. Copy of the said order is at
Annexure-A.

5. And whereas, the Expert Committee met on the
9th December, 2015 and decided that one Sub-
Committee should be constituted for each of the
category of disabilities which are provided
reservation under section 33 of the said repealed
Act and accordingly, following three Sub-
Committees were constituted, namely: —

i. Sub-Committee for locomotor disability
ii. Sub-Committee for hearing impaired
iii. Sub-Committee for visually impaired

6. And whereas, the Central Government notified
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
(hereinafter referred as “the Act”) which inter-alia
under sub-section (1) of section 34 extended the
benefit of reservation to persons with benchmark
disabilities in the new category of (i) autism,
specific learning disability, mental illness and
intellectual disabilities and (ii) multiple disabilities
amongst the various categories mentioned in the
said section of the Act.

7. And whereas, Section 33 of the said Act
mandates the appropriate Government to
constitute expert committee for identification of
posts suitable for persons with benchmark
9

disabilities and accordingly, following two sub-
committees were further constituted to take care of
identification of posts suitable for new categories
included under the Act, namely; (i) Sub-Committee
for autism, intellectual disabilities, specific
learning disability and mental illness, and (ii) Sub-
Committee for multiple disabilities.

8. And whereas, all the Sub-Committees reviewed
the posts notified through notification No.16-
15/2010-DD-III dated the 29th July 2013, and
submitted their reports and the Expert Committee
considered the reports of the Sub-Committees in its
meeting held on 19th November 2019, finalized its
recommendations and submitted its report to the
Central Government for consideration.

9. Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred
upon section 33 of the said Act and based on the
recommendations of the Expert Committee, the
Central Government hereby notifies the gist of the
report, which is at Annexure-B and the list of
Central Government posts in Group A, B, C and D
identified suitable for persons with benchmark
disabilities which is at Annexure-C for information
and further necessary action by all cadre
controlling authorities in the Central Government.

10. The said list supersedes the list of posts for
Groups ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ notified through
notification No. 16-15/2010-DD-III dated 29th
July, 2013.”

10

18. In response to the aforesaid direction,
respondent No.1 - CAG has filed an additional
affidavit, the relevant extract whereof is reproduced
hereinbelow for ease of ready reference: –
“3. That the present additional affidavit is being
filed in compliance with the order dated 06.01.2026
whereby, this Hon'ble Court has directed
considering accommodating the Petitioner and
Respondent No.3 in appropriate categories of posts
in Indian Audit & Accounts Department (IA&AD)
under Respondent No.1 (Comptroller and Auditor
General of India (CAG).

4. It is respectfully submitted that, as stated in the
counter affidavit dated 04.12.2025, suitable posts
in IA&AD were identified in 2018 by a duly
constituted Expert Committee under Sections 33
and 34 of the RPWD Act, 2016. The posts of
Assistant Accounts Officer, Divisional Accountant
and Auditor were not identified as suitable for
candidates with Specific Learning Disability or
Mental Illness. Although such candidates,
including the Petitioner, were initially
recommended by Respondent No. 2 through CGLE-
2018, their dossiers were returned for reallocation.
Respondent No. 2 thereafter issued a revised result
dated 12.11.2022 cancelling their allocation to
IA&AD.

5. That in the interim. pursuant to the Notification
dated 04.01.2021. the Group C posts of Assistant
(Audit) and Auditor-II were identified as suitable for
persons with benchmark disabilities of Special and
Mental Illness.
11

6. Pursuant to such change in the rule position,
Respondent No. 1 is ready and willing to
accommodate the Petitioner and Respondent No. 3
in Group C posts identified as suitable.
immediately after a recommendation/ return of the
dossier with complete details of the two candidates
in this respect is received from Respondent No.2.

7. It is respectfully submitted that for the present
recruitment process. Respondent No. 2 is the
competent authority to make a recommendation to
appoint the Petitioner for appointment against any
post identified as suitable for his benchmark
disability. Accordingly. Respondent No.1 has
requested the representation by Respondent No.2
in the present proceedings vide its letter dated
13.02.2026. In the absence of such
recommendation or directions from this Hon'ble
Court, any appointment by Respondent No. 1
would be outside the ambit of its authority.

8. In view of the aforesaid, it is humbly reiterated
that subject to recommendations made by
Respondent No. 2 for appointing the Petitioner and
Respondent No. 3 in other suitable posts,
Respondent No. 1 undertakes to make such
appointment.

9. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, Respondent No. I
remains duty bound to implement such directions
of this Hon'ble Court as it deems fit.”

12

19. Evidently, on a perusal of the affidavit filed by
respondent No.1 - CAG, it is clear that now, there
remains no impediment whatsoever for
accommodating the appellant before us as well as R3-
Shri Amit Yadav, against Group ‘C’ posts which have
been identified as suitable to their disabilities.
20. The only reservation expressed in the affidavit is
that these appointments can be considered only after
the recommendation from respondent No.2 - the Staff
Selection Commission (SSC) and receipt of the
dossiers of the candidates.
21. We are, therefore, of the considered view that
the present appeal deserves to be disposed of in light
of the additional affidavit filed by respondent No.1-
CAG. The respondent No.2-SSC is directed to
forthwith and not later than within a period of two
weeks from today, forward the dossiers of the
appellant herein, as well as R3 – Shri Amit Yadav to
respondent No.1-CAG. Upon the dossiers being
received, the appellant herein and R3 – Shri Amit
Yadav shall be duly considered for appointment
against Group ‘C’ posts in terms of the additional
th
affidavit dated 16 February, 2026. In case the posts
th
advertised vide notification dated 5 May, 2018 have
13

already been filled, the respondents shall create
supernumerary posts for accommodating both these
candidates. The appointment of the appellant herein
and R3 – Shri Amit Yadav shall take effect from the
date of their joining.
22. The appeal is disposed of in these terms.
23. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.

….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)


...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 12, 2026.


14