Kunika Singh vs DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING

1

OA No. 3104/2026

Central Administrative T
Tribunal
Principal Bench, New
Delhi

OA No. 3104/2026

Wed

th
dnesday, this the 14 day of O
October, 2026
Chairman
, Member (A)
H
Hon

Kunika Sin
Chuahan, R
Alwar, Raja
(By Advoca
Mr. Ishan fo
on'ble Justice Ranjit More,
n'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap,
ngh, Aged about 25 years, D
D/o Mahendra Singh
R/o 171, Patrakar Colony, Bu
asthan – 301001.
ate: Mr. Anand Kumar with M
udh Vihar Extension
Ms. Maheshwari and
or the Applicant)
… Applicant

Versus

1. Departme
Through S
Work Hall
Kartavya B
North Blo

2. Union Pu
Through it
Dholpur H
New Delhi

3. Army Ho
Military H
Dhaula Ku
Delhi 1100
ent of Personnel & Training
Secretary,
l No. 31020,
Bhawan – 03,
ck, New Delhi – 110001.
ublic Service Commission (UP
PSC),
ts Chairman,
House, Shahjahan Road,
i – 110069.
spital (R&R),
Hospital Road, Near Subroto P
Park,
uan, New Delhi,
010.
…Respondents

(By Advocat
R.V. Sinha f

te: Mr. Dhananjai Rana for R
for Respondent No. 2)
Respondent No. 1, Mr.

GAGAN GAGAN
MALIK
MALIK

2

OA No. 3104/2026

O R D E R (ORAL)
)

Per: Justic

Since
ce Ranjit More, Chairman
n
pleadings are complete, w
with the consent of
learned cou
unsel for the respective partie
es and having regard
to the subje
ect matter of the O.A., we dis
spose of this Original
Application
finally at the stage of admissi
ion.
2. The b
rief facts necessary for dispos
sal of the present OA
are as follow
ws:
Respo
ondent No. 2, UPSC, issued
a notification dated
22.01.2025
for the Civil Services Examin
nation, 2025, inviting
applications
s from eligible candidates
for recruitment to
various serv
vices and posts under the G
Government of India,
wherein sea
ats are reserved for candida
ates who suffer from
blindness an
nd low vision (Category PwBD
D-2).
2.1 The a
applicant already possessed
d a certificate dated
16.02.2024
showing 40% visual impairm
ment in terms of the
applicable G
Guidelines and thereafter ap
pplied for CSE 2025
under the P
PwBD category. The applican
nt cleared CSE 2025
conducted b
by UPSC and secured All-In
ndia Rank 342. The
applicant’s
name was recommended by
y Respondent No. 2
(UPSC) to R
Respondent No. 1 (DoPT) for f
further action.
2.2 At th
he instance of Respondent
No. 1 (DoPT), the
applicant u
underwent general medical
fitness examination
conducted b
by Central Standing Medical B
Board (CSMB) at the
designated
Safdarjung Hospital. In
order to ascertain
benchmark
disability for PwBD candidat
tes, the applicant was
also examin
ned by the Benchmark Dis
ability Expert Panel
(BDEP) con
nstituted at AIIMS, New De
elhi. The benchmark
GAGAN GAGAN
MALIK
MALIK

3

OA No. 3104/2026

disability of
f visual impairment was ass
sessed by the BDEP,
AIIMS, at
10%. The applicant thereaft
ter, in terms of the
Examinatio
n Rules, filed an appeal to the
e Appellate Disability
Medical Bo
oard (ADMB) constituted
at Army Hospital
(Research &
& Referral), New Delhi (Resp
pondent No. 3). The
applicant w
was thereafter examined and h
her visual impairment
was assesse
ed at 40%, however, the repo
ort was not furnished
to the appli
icant. At this stage, the applic
cant approached this
Tribunal see
eking the following reliefs and
d interim relief:
Relief
“1. Th
Respon
Army H
Report
Respon
shall n
Applica
2. To d
Rules,
3. Thi
Respon
of the
20.04.2

Interi

“(1)Dir
Examin
Respon
recomm
(2)Dire
the Ap
of the A
accord

2.3 Durin
fs Sought
his Hon’ble Tribunal may be
pleased to direct the
s of Respondent No. 5 –
he Medical Examination
ndent No. 2 to declare the finding
Hospital (R&R) with respect to th
t of the Applicant as being fin
ndent No. 2 and further declare th
not interfere in the Medical Exam
al and binding on the
hat the Respondent No. 2
mination process of the
ant beyond the Civil Services Rules
direct the Respondent No. 2 to act
s.
t in accordance with CSE
f natural justice.
2025, and established principle of
is Hon’ble Tribunal may be
ndent No. 3, Army Hospital (R&R
pleased to direct the
R), to provide the Report
pplicant conducted from
Medical Examination of the Ap
2026 to 08.05.2026.”
im reliefs sought
rect the Respondent No. 1 to publis
sh the Appellate Medical
ant conducted by the
nation Report of the Applica
ndent No. 3, Army Hospital (
(R&R), along with the
mendations forthwith.
ect the Respondent No. 1 to reco
gnize the legal status of
ty based upon the report
plicant as a Person with Disabilit
Appellate Disability Medical Board
d (Respondent No. 3), in
ly”
ance with the CSE Rules, 2025 onl
ng the pendency of the appli
cation, the applicant
received tw
wo letters from Respondent N
No. 1 directing her to
approach a
a third hospital for ascertain
ning her benchmark
disability in
n light of the two different op
inions by AIIMS and
GAGAN GAGAN
MALIK
MALIK

4

OA No. 3104/2026

Army Hosp
pital (Research & Referral),
Delhi. These letters
have been st
tayed by this Tribunal.
3. Mr. A
Anand Kumar, learned counse
el for the applicant, at
the outset,
invited our attention to Ru
ule 5(11) of the CSE
Rules, 2025
5, and submitted that the rep
port of the Appellate
Disability M
Medical Board is final and n
no appeal would lie
against it. H
He further submitted that th
he appellate report is
final, Respo
ondent No. 1 must act on the
said report and take
further actio
on in pursuance of the recom
mmendation by UPSC
(Responden
nt No. 2).
4. Mr. R
Rana, learned counsel for the
respondent no. 1, on
the contrar
ry, contested the application
n. He submitted that
since there
is a variation in the two repo
orts, namely those of
AIIMS and
d the Army Hospital, re
egarding the visual
impairment
t of the applicant, the appli
icant deserved to be
referred to
a third hospital. He further
r submitted that the
applicant ha
as not challenged the genera
al examination report
of Safdarjun
ng Hospital assessing visual
l impairment at 10%
and therefo
ore it cannot now lie in the m
outh of the applicant
that the opi
inion of the Appellate Disabil
lity Medical Board is
final. Mr. R
Rana, learned counsel for Re
espondent No. 1, has
also filed a c
counter-affidavit and, along w
with the said counter-
affidavit, ha
as also placed on record the m
medical report of the
applicant re
egarding visual disability from
m the ADMB at Army
Hospital (R
Research & Referral), New De
elhi (Respondent No.
3). Under th
his report, the appellate autho
ority has assessed the
visual impai
irment of the applicant at 40%
%.
5. Havin
ng gone through the pleading
gs and given anxious
consideratio
on to the submissions o
of learned counsel
GAGAN GAGAN
MALIK
MALIK

5

OA No. 3104/2026

appearing f
for the respective parties, w
we find merit in the
contentions
s of the applicant.
6. The sh
hort issue involved in the pre
esent O.A. is whether,
once the b
enchmark disability report
for PwBD from the
Army Hos
pital (Research & Referra
al) assessing visual
impairment
t at 40% is available, the res
spondents can again
compel the
applicant to submit to a fre
esh examination by a
third hospit
tal.
7. Rule
5(11) of Appendix III of
the Civil Services
Examinatio
n Rules, 2025, reads as follow
ws:
“5 (11).
will be
constit
ADMB
and po
The ca
date an
upload
concern
opinion
against

. Candidate filing an appeal agains
e referred to Appellate Disability
st the report of the BDEP
Medical Board (ADMB)
rch & Referral), Delhi.
would be of suitable rank
tuted at Army Hospital (Resear
will comprise of members who w
osition and the same would invaria
andidate will have to be present b
ably be headed by HOD.
before this Board on the
nd time indicated in the notice for
ded in the website on the dedicated
r the same which will be
d page for the candidate
st would be sent. The
and no appeal would lie
ned. No separate notice by po
n of this ADMB would be final a
t its opinion.”
In ligh
ht of the above Rule, after rec
commendation of the
applicant’s
name by UPSC to DoPT,
the applicant was
required to
undergo the general examin
nation at Safdarjung
Hospital. Sh
he was also required to unde
ergo examination for
her PwBD d
disability, namely visual imp
pairment (benchmark
disability),
at AIIMS. It is an admitted
d fact that the visual
impairment
t of the applicant was assesse
ed by AIIMS at 10%.
In terms of
the provisions of Rule 5(11) r
referred to above, the
applicant p
preferred an appeal and, in
n pursuance of this
appeal, the
e applicant was referred
to Army Hospital
(Research &
& Referral), Delhi (Responden
nt No. 3). There is no
dispute am
mongst the parties that the
ADMB assessed the
GAGAN GAGAN
MALIK
MALIK

6

OA No. 3104/2026

applicant’s
visual impairment at 40%.
Rule 5(11) makes it
clear that t
the report of the ADMB wo
ould be final and no
appeal woul
ld lie against its opinion. As s
such, Respondent No.
1, after the o
opinion of the ADMB, could n
not have required the
applicant t
o undergo another examin
ation at a different
hospital. R
Respondent No. 1, in light o
of the report of the
Appellate D
Disability Medical Board, sho
ould have proceeded
further and
d acted upon the recommend
dation of UPSC. The
submission
of Mr. Rana, learned counse
l for Respondent No.
1, that there
e was variation in the reports
s regarding the visual
impairment
t of the applicant and ther
refore the applicant
needed to b
e examined by a third body, c
cannot be accepted.
8. In ligh
ht of the above, we allow the
Original Application
and direct
Respondent No. 1 to tre
eat the findings of
Respondent
t no. 3 with respect to the me
edical examination of
the applican
nt as final, in accordance wi
ith CSE Rules, 2025
and to proc
ceed with service allocation
as per the relevant
rules.
There
e shall be no order as to costs
s. Pending M.A.(s), if
any, shall st
tand disposed of.



(Rajind
Me

gm
der Kashyap) (Justi
ember (A) C
ce Ranjit More)
Chairman
GAGAN GAGAN
MALIK
MALIK