Union Of India vs Preeti Vaid And Anr
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~67
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8960/2026 & CM APPL. 41983/2026, CM APPL.
41984/2026
UNION OF INDIA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankit Raj, SPC with Mr.
Saurabh Mishra, Adv.
versus
PREETI VAID AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. R.K. Handoo, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 08.07.2026
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. By notice dated 23 December 2021, the Staff Selection
1
Commission invited applications for the Combined Level Graduate
2
Examination 2021 for recruitment to posts reserved for Persons with
3
Disabilities” .
2. The respondent suffers from multiple sclerosis of the brain with
low vision in both eyes. She is in possession of a disability certificate
dated 5 October 2021 issued by the Department of Empowerment of
1
“the SSC” hereinafter
2
“CGLE” hereinafter
3
“PwD” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:09.07.2026
17:19:26
W.P.(C) 8960/2026 Page 1 of 14
4
Persons with Disabilities , which reads as under:
“Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities,
Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India
Disability Certificate
(In case of multiple disability)
Issuing Medical Authority, Jammu, Jammu And Kashmir
Certificate No.: JK2110119900029151 Date: 05/10/2021
This is to certify that I/We have carefully examined Kum. Preeti
Vaid Daughter of Shri Gopal Datt Sharma Date of Birth
10/12/1990 Age 29 Year(s) Female, Registration No.
0709/00000/2002/3567184 resident of the 138 Panjtirthi, Jammu-
180001 Sub District Jammu District Jammu State /UTs Jammu
And Kashmir
Whose photograph is affixed above, and I/We satisfied that:
(A) She is a case of Multiple Disability. Her extent of physical
Impairment/disability has been evaluated as per guidelines (to be
specified) for the disabilities ticked below, and shown against the
relevant disability table below.
SNO. Disability Affected
Part of
Body
Diagnosis Permanent
physical
impairment/
mental
disability
(In %)
1 Low
Vision
BOTH
EYES
LEFT OPTIC
NEUROPATHY
WITH VA:6/36 L/E
RAPD, DISC
PALLOR OPTIC
ATROPHY
15%
2 Multiple
Sclerosis
BRAIN A CASE OF
DEMYELINATING
LESION WITH
LEFT OPTIC
NEUROPATHY
30%
(B) In the light of the above her overall physical impairment as
per guidelines (to be specified) is as follows.
4
“DEPwD” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:09.07.2026
17:19:26
W.P.(C) 8960/2026 Page 2 of 14
In figures 40%
In words Forty percent
2. This condition is non-progressive.
3. Re-assessment of disability is:
(I) not recommended,
4. The applicant has submitted the following document(s) as
proof of residence:-
Nature of Document(s): Electricity Bill (not older than last
three months).
Sd/-
Signature/Thumb impression of the Person With Disability
Sd/-
Signature of notified Medical Authority Member”
3. As per the above certificate, it is clear that the cumulative
disability from which the respondent is certified as suffering totalled
to 45%, which is above the threshold of 40% which would entitle the
respondent to reservation for appointment in government service.
4. The respondent underwent a selection process. She cleared all
tiers of the selection process successfully and was called for document
verification on 31 January 2023. At that stage, her candidature was
rejected. The reason for rejection was stated thus:
“Multiple Sclerosis Disease not admissible for reservation.”
5. On 13 May 2023, the final result was declared, in which the
name of the respondent did not figure.
6. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent instituted OA 1289/2023
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:09.07.2026
17:19:26
W.P.(C) 8960/2026 Page 3 of 14
5
before the Central Administrative Tribunal , challenging the decision
to treat her as ineligible for reservation as a PwD and, therefore,
praying that the petitioner be directed to appoint her against a PwD
vacancy.
7. The Tribunal, by judgment dated 12 December 2025, has
allowed the OA.
8. Aggrieved thereby, the SSC has approached this Court by
means of the present writ petition.
9. We have heard Mr. Saurabh Mishra, learned Counsel appearing
on behalf of Mr. Ankit Raj, learned SPC and Mr. R.K. Handoo,
learned Counsel for the respondent.
10. The limited issue which arises for consideration is whether the
respondent is entitled to the benefit of reservation as a PWD. The
reasoning of the Tribunal is reflected in the following paragraphs from
the impugned judgment:
“6.1 Here the short issue is whether Multiple Sclerosis of Brain
is included as one of the disabilities for considering benchmark
disability for reservation for PWD candidates. The corollary to this
issue is whether the disability certificate issued to the present
candidate is as per the PWD Act, 2016 entitling the present
applicant to get reservation against posts reserved for PWD
candidates.
6.2 It is worthwhile to revisit Section 34(1)(e) of the PWD Act,
2016 which reads:
“(e) multiple disabilities from amongst persons under
clauses (a) to (d) including deaf-blindness in the posts
5
“the Tribunal” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:09.07.2026
17:19:26
W.P.(C) 8960/2026 Page 4 of 14
identified for each disabilities.”
It implies that Clause (e) has to be read with other Clauses under
section 34(1). Clause (d) refers to mental illness and clause (a)
refers to blindness and low vision. It implies that a person may
suffer from a combination of disabilities from (a) to (d) and if the
disabilities confirm to 40%, then these can be covered as
benchmark disability. The disability certificate issued to the present
applicant by competent Medical Authority (Annexure-A3) states
that the present Applicant has low vision with impairment to the
extent of 15% and Multiple Sclerosis to the extent of 30%
impairment. The medical authorities certified that the overall
physical disability is 40%.
6.3 Now the question arises whether Multiple Sclerosis is
qualified to be included in the disabilities to be included in the
disabilities for determining benchmark disability. The learned
counsel for the applicant has referred to Schedule (2) of the RPWD
Act, 2016, where Clause 4 has defined various types of disabilities.
Clause 4(i) states:
“Disability caused due to—
(a) chronic neurological conditions, such as—
(i) “multiple sclerosis” means an inflammatory,
nervous system disease in which the myelin sheaths
around the axons of nerve cells of the brain and
spinal cord are damaged, leading to demyelination
and affecting the ability of nerve cells in the brain
and spinal cord to communicate with each other.
The website of WHO states:
“Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a condition that happens when
the immune system attacks the brain and spinal cord.
Symptoms of MS vary from person to person and depend
on the location and severity of nerve fibre damage. These
often include vision problems, tiredness, trouble walking
and keeping balance. and numbness or weakness in the
arms and legs. Symptoms can come and go or last for a
long time.”
Further, the WHO website states:
“Neurodevelopmental disorders
Neurodevelopmental disorders are behavioural and
cognitive disorders that arise during the developmental
period and involve significant difficulties in the acquisition
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:09.07.2026
17:19:26
W.P.(C) 8960/2026 Page 5 of 14
and execution of specific intellectual, motor, language, or
social functions.
Neurodevelopmental disorders include disorders of
intellectual development, autism spectrum disorder, and
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder [ADHD] amongst
others.”
Source:https://www.who.int/news-
room/factsheets/detail/mental-disorders.
(Accessed at 8.32 am on 11.12.2025)”
11. Having perused the impugned judgment and heard learned
Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that no cause for
interference with the impugned judgment, within the parameters of
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, exists.
12. The basic contention of Mr. Saurabh Mishra is that multiple
sclerosis is not one of the ailments envisaged in clauses (a) to (d) of
6
Section 34 (1) of the RPWD Act, 2016 and that, if multiple sclerosis
were to be excluded, the respondent would not satisfy the necessary
requirement of 40% disability for the purposes of Section 34(1) (a), in
order to entitle the respondent for reservation.
13. Equally, it is not in dispute that, if the multiple sclerosis is one
of the ailments which falls within Section 34(1), the respondent would
be entitled to reservation as, combining the degree of disability
suffered by her on account of multiple sclerosis and low vision, the
disability is 45%, which is above the limit of 40%.
6
The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:09.07.2026
17:19:26
W.P.(C) 8960/2026 Page 6 of 14
14. We have considered, with due earnestness, Mr. Mishra’s
contention that multiple sclerosis does not fall within any of the
clauses (a) to (d) of Section 34(1). He submits that, if it did, it would
have certainly found mention therein.
15. This submission, on its face, cannot be accepted. Clauses (a) to
(d) of Section 34(1) specified the categories of disabilities and not any
individual ailment.
16. If one vivisects Section 34(1), it breaks into two parts. The first
part of Section 34(1) incorporates a statutory obligation on the
establishment to reserve not less than 4% of the total vacancies in the
cadre strength for “persons with benchmark disability”. The second
part of Section 34(1) proceeds to explain how to divide this 4%
amongst various categories of disabilities.
17. We are of the view that the second part of Section 34(1) cannot
limit the width and amplitude of the first part of Section 34(1). In
other words, it is a solemn obligation of the establishment to reserve
4% of the vacancies in the cadre strength for persons with benchmark
disability.
18. “Persons with benchmark disability” is defined in Section 2(r)
of the RPWD Act as a person with not less than 40% of a specified
disability.
19. “Specified disability” is further defined in Section 2(z)(c) as
meaning the disabilities as specified in the Schedule to the RPWD
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:09.07.2026
17:19:26
W.P.(C) 8960/2026 Page 7 of 14
Act.
20. Multiple sclerosis is specifically a disability mentioned in
Clause 4(a)(i) of the Schedule to RPWD Act. We may reproduce
Clause 4 of the Schedule thus:
“4. Disability caused due to—
(a) chronic neurological conditions, such as—
(i) “multiple sclerosis” means an inflammatory,
nervous system disease in which the myelin sheaths
around the axons of nerve cells of the brain and
spinal cord are damaged, leading to demyelination
and affecting the ability of nerve cells in the brain
and spinal cord to communicate with each other;”
21. Inasmuch as (i) multiple sclerosis is a disability which is
specifically envisaged in the Schedule to the RPWD Act, (ii) multiple
sclerosis is, therefore, a “specified disability” within the meaning of
Section 2(z)(c) and (iii) a person suffering from multiple sclerosis is,
therefore, a “person with benchmark disability” within the meaning of
Section 2(r), it cannot be disputed that the respondent is a person with
7
benchmark disability by a combined reading of clause 4(a)(i) and 5 of
the RPWD Act.
22. Clearly, therefore, by operation of the first part of Section 34(1)
of the RPWD Act, persons with multiple sclerosis, who either have
40% disability owing to multiple sclerosis or 40% disability owing to
multiple sclerosis along with any other specified disability, be entitled
7
5. Multiple Disabilities (more than one of the above specified disabilities) including deaf blindness
which means a condition in which a person may have combination of hearing and visual impairments causing
severe communication, developmental, and educational problems.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:09.07.2026
17:19:26
W.P.(C) 8960/2026 Page 8 of 14
to reservation.
23. We are clear that the second part of Section 34(1) cannot be so
read as to reduce the width of the first part and exclude, from the
operation of Section 34, a person suffering from benchmark disability.
8
Even otherwise, the Supreme Court has, in Vikash Kumar v. UPSC ,
9
Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India and In Re:
10
Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services clearly held
that courts have to interpret the provisions of the RPWD Act keeping
in mind the philosophy of the statute and with a view to include as
many persons who suffer from disability within the scope of the
statute as possible. A restrictive interpretation of a provision of
RPWD Act is against the very grain of the statute.
24. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the interpretation provided
by the Tribunal besides being in sync with the philosophy of the
RPWD Act, is unexceptionable.
25. Further, “mental illness” is specifically included in Clause
34(1)(d) of the RPWD Act. “Mental illness” is defined in Schedule to
the RPWD Act, thus:
“3. Mental behaviour,— “mental illness” means a substantial
disorder of thinking, mood, perception, orientation or memory that
grossly impairs judgment, behaviour, capacity to recognise reality
or ability to meet the ordinary demands of life, but does not include
retardation which is a condition of arrested or incomplete
development of mind of a person, specially characterised by
subnormality of intelligence.”
8
(2021) 5 SCC 370
9
(2023) 2 SCC 209
10
2025 SCC OnLine SC 481
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:09.07.2026
17:19:26
W.P.(C) 8960/2026 Page 9 of 14
26. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal has relied on
authoritative material published by the WHO, which clearly opines
that neurodevelopment disorders include behavioural and cognitive
disorders, which also include significant difficulties in the acquisition
and execution of specific intellectual, motor, language or social
functions. Applying this interpretation to the expression “mental
illness” in the light of the philosophy of the RPWD Act, we find no
error in the view adopted by the Tribunal that a person suffering from
multiple sclerosis, which is at the very least a neurodevelopmental
disorder, can also be treated as a person with “mental illness” for the
purposes of Section 34(1) of the RPWD Act.
27. We are supported in the view that we have taken from the
manner in which the advertisement was issued by the SSC.
28. Annexure XIV to the advertisement issued by the SSC, pursuant
to which the respondent applied, reads thus:
“Form - VI
Certificate of Disability
(In cases of multiple disabilities)
[See rule 18(1)]
(Name and Address of the Medical Authority issuing the
Certificate)
Recent passport size
attested photograph
(Showing face only) of
the person with
disability.
Certificate No. Date:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:09.07.2026
17:19:26
W.P.(C) 8960/2026 Page 10 of 14
This is to certify that we have carefully examined
Shri/Smt./Kum. __________________________ son/wife/daughter
of Shri __________________________ Date of Birth
(DD/MM/YY) __________________________ Age _____ years,
male/female __________________________.
Registration No. _______________________ permanent resident
of House No. _________ Ward/Village/Street __________ Post
Office ___________District __________ State __________,
whose photograph is affixed above, and am satisfied that:
(A) he/she is a case of Multiple Disability. His/her extent of
permanent physical impairment/disability has been evaluated as per
guidelines (………………number and date of issue of the
guidelines to be specified) for the disabilities ticked below, and is
shown against the relevant disability in the table below:
S.
No
Disability Affected
part of
body
Diagnosis Permanent
physical
impairmen
t/mental
disability
(in %)
1. Locomotor
disability
@
2. Muscular
Dystrophy
3. Leprosy cured
4. Dwarfism
5. Cerebral Palsy
6. Acid attack Victim
7. Low vision #
8. Blindness #
9. Deaf £
10. Hard of Hearing £
11. Speech and
Language disability
12. Intellectual
Disability
13. Specific Learning
Disability
14. Autism Spectrum
Disorder
15. Mental illness
16. Chronic
Neurological
Conditions
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:09.07.2026
17:19:26
W.P.(C) 8960/2026 Page 11 of 14
17. Multiple sclerosis
18. Parkinson’s disease
19. Haemophilia
20. Thalassemia
21. Sickle Cell disease
(B) In the light of the above, his/her over all permanent physical
impairment as per guidelines (..........number and date of issue of
the guidelines to be specified), is as follows:
In figures: --------------- percent
In words:-------------------------------------------------------- percent
2. This condition is progressive/non-progressive/likely to
improve/not likely to improve.
3. Reassessment of disability is:
(i) not necessary,
Or
(ii) is recommended/after ............... years ................
months, and therefore this certificate shall be valid till ---- -
--- ----
(DD) (MM) (YY)
@ e.g. Lefi/right/both arms/legs
# e.g. Single eye
£ e.g. Left/Right/both ears
4. The applicant has submitted the following document as
proof of residence:
Nature of document Date of issue Details of authority
issuing certificate
5. Signature and seal of the Medical Authority.
Name and seal of
member
Name and
seal of
member
Name and seal of
the Chairperson
Signature/thumb impression of the person in whose favour
certificate of disability is issued.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:09.07.2026
17:19:26
W.P.(C) 8960/2026 Page 12 of 14
29. Thus, even the advertisement issued by the petitioner, in
Annexure XIV, included, at S. No. 17, “multiple sclerosis” as one of
the disabilities which would entitle a candidate applying to
reservation. Mr. Mishra has drawn our attention to Clause 6.1 of the
advertisement which reads thus:
“6.l Candidates who wish to be considered against reserved
vacancies or seek age relaxation must submit requisite certificate
from the competent authority, in the prescribed format when such
certificates are sought by concerned Regional Offices at the time of
Skill Test/Document Verification. Otherwise, their claim for SC/
ST/ OBCI EWS/ PwD/ ESM category will not be entertained and
their candidature/application will be considered under Unreserved
(UR)/ relevant category. The formats of the certificates are
annexed with the Notice of this Examination. The certificate of
disability issued under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act,
1995 (1 of 1996) will also be valid. Certificates in any other format
are liable to be rejected.”
30. Clause 6.1 of the advertisement, if anything, supports the view
that Tribunal has taken. The first part of Clause 6.1 requires the
candidate to submit their applications in the formats specified therein.
The formats of the certificates which are to accompany the application
are also, therefore, part of the advertisement itself. Accordingly, the
advertisement also envisages multiple sclerosis as one of the
disabilities which would entitle the candidate to the benefit of the
RPWD Act.
31. Clause 6.1 proceeds further to observe that the certificate of
disability issued under the RPWD Act would be valid. To our mind,
even this clause clinches the issue. By virtue of this clause, the SSC
cannot go behind the certificate issued by the competent authority
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:09.07.2026
17:19:26
W.P.(C) 8960/2026 Page 13 of 14
under the RPWD Act. It is not in dispute that the respondent is in
possession of a certificate issued by the authority under the RPWD
Act, certifying that the respondent is suffering from cumulative
disability of 45%, of which 30% is attributable to multiple sclerosis.
32. The said certificate would also, therefore, read with Clause 6.1
of the advertisement, entitle the respondent to the benefit of Section
34 of the RPWD Act.
33. In that view of the matter, we concur with the Tribunal that the
cancellation of the respondent’s candidature is not in accordance with
the law. The Tribunal has therefore rightly set aside the cancellation
and directed consequential reliefs.
34. We, therefore, find no cause to interfere with the present writ
petition, which is dismissed in limine .
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
VINOD KUMAR, J.
JULY 8, 2026/ dsn
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:09.07.2026
17:19:26
W.P.(C) 8960/2026 Page 14 of 14