Dilip Kumar Singh vs RAILWAY BOARD

1
Item No. 48 O.A. No. 939/2026
Court No. IV

Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi

O.A. No. 939/2026

Reserved on : 31.07.2026
Pronounced on: 20.08.2026

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon’ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)

1. Dilip Kumar Singh S/o Ramsharan
R/o B-151, Balbir Vihar, Kirari Suleman Nagar, North West Delhi-
110086
Age-29 years
Contact No. 9341614546
[email protected]
2. Majusha Lakra D/o Sanichar Lakra
F-22/667, Ganesh Nagar Part-2, Shaker Pur East Delhi-110092
Age-28 years,
Contact No. 8285530993
[email protected]
3.Pinki Singh D/o Rajesh Singh
R/o Vill. Milkopur, Post Sadar, Distt. Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh 222001
Age-26 years
Contact No. 8483993113
Email [email protected]
4. Juli Kachhap D/o Dharmu Kachhap
R/o A-373, Gali No. 1, Near New Shakarpur, Ganesh Nagar Part-2,
Shakarpur, East Delhi-110092
Age- 19 years
Contact No. 9122182533/
Email [email protected]
5. Neeraj Choursiya S/o Ambika Prasad Chouriya
R/o No. 4980, Ground Floor, Khasra No. 105/23 & 105/24, B Block,
Gali No. 113/11, Khushal Chowk, Sant Nagar, Burari, North Delhi-
110084
Age-39 years
Contact No. 9599238166
[email protected]
6. Nibha Kumari D/o Fakan Prasad
R/o No. B-1/18, Rama Vihar, Near Balaji Mandir, Karala, North West
ANKI
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.08.
31 10:00:09
+05'30'
T
SAKL
ANI

2
Item No. 48 O.A. No. 939/2026
Court No. IV

Delhi
Age-28 years,
Contact No. 8287706171
[email protected]
7. Kashinath S/o Late Dasharath Prasad
R/o No. C-539, Nathupura, North West Delhi-110084
Age-46 years,
Contact No. 9821813726
Email- [email protected]
8. Faheen S/o Sirajuddin
R/o No. 100 V.P.O. Atrauli, PS Bhojpur Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad-
245304 U.P.
Age-24 years,
Contact No. 8393804465
[email protected]
9. Pratap Singh S/o Ramsevak
R/o Vill. Asohana, The. Gohad, Ditt. Bhind, Madhya Pradesh-477222
Age-23 years,
Contact No.7583035255
[email protected]
10. Sonu S/o Suresh Babu
R/o Vill. Jodhapura, Post Gljurra, Tehsil Mehgaon, Distt. Bhind, MP-
477577
Age- 18 years,
Contact No. 7440856293
Email- [email protected]
11. Ravinder Choudhry S/o Ramesh Prasad
R/O Khasra No. 12/21, 1st Floor, Block-A, 41 Foota Road, Kamal
Vihar Burari, North Delhi-110084
Age-22 years,
Contact No. 7982763044
[email protected]
12. Dev Narayan Dwivedi S/o Virendra Kumar
R/o Vill. Nagla Hari Ram Surendha, Auraira, Distt. Auraiya-206252
UP
Age-28 years,
Contact No. 7210097863
[email protected]
13. Champa Lal S/o Nanda Ram
R/o Vill. Sadak ka Badiya, Kidmal Gajuna, Post Shivpur, Distt.
ANKI
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.08.
31 10:00:09
+05'30'
T
SAKL
ANI

3
Item No. 48 O.A. No. 939/2026
Court No. IV

Bhilwara, Rajasthan-311804
Age-31 years,
Contact No. 9636740277
Email- [email protected]
…Applicant

(By Advocates: Mr. S.K. Rungta, Senior Counsel with Mr. Prashant
Singh)

Versus
1. RAILWAY BOARD
Through its Chairman
Having its office at Rail Bhawan, New Delhi-110003

2. Union of India
Through Secretary
Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities
Govt. Of India
Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, New Delhi-110003

3. Western Railway
Through its General Manager
Headquarter office
Old Building, 1st floor, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020

4. Railway Recruitment Board Ahmedabad (WR)
Through Its chairman
Having its office at Ist floor, Meter Guage Railway Station Building,
Kalupur, Ahmadabad, Gujarat- Pin 380002.
Ph: 079-22940858
Email: www.rrbahmedabad.gov.in

5. Railway Recruitment Cell (WR)
Through its chairman
Having its office at Parcel Depot, Allbhai Premji Marg,
Grant Road, Mumbai -400007

6. North-Western Railway
Through its General Manager
Headquarter office FA & CAO, 3rd floor, Near Jawahar Circle,
Jaipur-302017

7. Railway Recruitment Board Ajmer
Through Its chairman
Having its office at 2010, Nehru Marg Near Ambedkar Circle, Ajmer-
ANKI
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.08.
31 10:00:09
+05'30'
T
SAKL
ANI

4
Item No. 48 O.A. No. 939/2026
Court No. IV

305028, Rajasthan
Ph: 0145-2425230
Email: www.rrbajmer.gov.in

8. Railway Recruitment Cell
North Western Railway
Through its chairman
Having its office at Power House Road, Opposite DRM Office,
Jaipur-302006

9. South Western Railway
Through its General Manager
Having its office at "Rail Soudha" South Western Railway Gadag
Road Hubli, Pin-580020.

10. Railway Recruitment Board Bangaluru (SWR)
Through Its chairman
Having its office at No.18, Millers Road, Near Cantonment Railway
Station, Bengaluru -560046.
Ph: 080-23330378
Email: www.rrbbnc.gov.in

11. Railway Recruitment Cell
South Western Railway
Through its chairman
Having its office at Ground floor, DRM Office Building, South
Western Railway, Bangalore-560023

12. West Central Railway
Through its General Manager
Annexe Building, First floor, Indira Market, Jabalpur, Madhya
Pradesh-482001

13. Railway Recruitment Board Bhopal
Through Its chairman
Having its office at East Railway Colony (Near Bhopal Railway
Station) Bhopal-462010
Ph: 0755-2746660
Email: www.rrbbhopal.gov.in

14. Railway Recruitment Cell West Central Railway
Through its Chairman
ANKI
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.08.
31 10:00:09
+05'30'
T
SAKL
ANI

5
Item No. 48 O.A. No. 939/2026
Court No. IV

RRC Office, WCR HQ Annexe Building, Near Indra Market,
Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh - 482001

15. East Coast Railway
Through its General Manager
Headquarters office, Rail Sadan, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar -
751017, Odisha

16. Railway Recruitment Board Bhubaneshwar
Through Its chairman
Having its office at D-79/80, Rail Vihar Chandrasekharpur,
Bhubaneshwar Odisha, Pin-751023
Ph: 0674-2303015
Email: www.rrbbbs.gov.in

17. Railway Recruitment Cell East Coast Railway
Through its Chairman
2nd Floor, South Block, Rail Sadan, Chandrasekharpur,
Bhubaneswar, Odisha - 751017

18. South East Central Railway
Through its General Manager
New Zonal Building in Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, PIN - 495004

19. Railway Recruitment Board Bilaspur
Through its chairman
Having its office at Beside General Manager/SECR's office Complex
Bilaspur(C.G) Pin: 495004
Ph: 07752-247291
Email: www.rrbbilaspur.gov.in

20. Railway Recruitment Cell Bilaspur South East Central Railway
Through its Chairman
Headquarters Personnel Department, 1st Floor, GM's Office,
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh - 482001

21. Northern Railway
Through its General Manager
Baroda House, New Delhi

22. Railway Recruitment Board Chandigarh
Through Its chairman
Having its office at Chandigarh Railway Colony, Near Railway
ANKI
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.08.
31 10:00:09
+05'30'
T
SAKL
ANI

6
Item No. 48 O.A. No. 939/2026
Court No. IV

Station, Chandigarh-160002.
Ph: 0172-2730093
Email: www.rrbcdg.gov.in

23. Railway Recruitment Cell
Northern Railway
Through its chairman
Having its office at Lajpat Nagar-1, New Delhi-24

24. Southern Railway
Through its General Manager
General Branch, 1st Floor, NGO Main Building, Park Town, Chennai
- 600003.

25. Railway Recruitment Board Chennai
Through its chairman
Having its office at 5, Dr. P.V. Cherian Crescent Road Egmore-
Chennai-600008
Ph: 044-28275323
Email: www.rrbchennai.gov.in

26. Railway Recruitment Cell Southern Railway
Through its Chairman
5, Dr. P.V. Cherian Crescent Road Egmore-Chennai-600008

27. North Eastern Railway
Through its General Manager
Having its office at General Manager Office, North Eastern Railway,
Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh - 273012
(Gorakhpur)

28. Railway Recruitment Board Gorakhpur (NER)
Through Its chairman
Having its office at Railway Station Road, Gorakhpur-273012(UP)
Ph: 0551-2208009
Email: www.rrbgkp.gov.in

29. Railway Recruitment Cell North Eastern Railway
Through is Chairman
Having its office at CC Road, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh - 273012

ANKI
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.08.
31 10:00:09
+05'30'
T
SAKL
ANI

7
Item No. 48 O.A. No. 939/2026
Court No. IV

30. North-East Frontier Railway
Through its General Manager
Having its office at Maligaon, Guwahati-781011, Assam

31. Railway Recruitment Board Guwahati
Through Its chairman
Having its office at Station Road Guwahati-781001
Ph: 0361-2540815
Email: www.rrbguwahati.gov.in

32. Railway Recruitment Cell North East Frontier Railway
Through its Chairman
Station Road, Panbazar, Guwahati, Assam, Pin - 781001 Guwahati)

33. Eastern Railway
Through its General Manager
Having its office at 17, Netaji Subhas Road (N.S. Road), Fairley
Place, BB
Bagh, Kolkata, West Bengal - 700001
Email: [email protected]

34. Railway Recruitment Board Kolkata Eastern Railway
Through Its chairman
Metro Railway, A.V complex Chitpur opposite to R.G Kar Medical
College and Hospital R.G.Kar Road Kolkata-700031.
Ph: 0621516873
Email: www.rrbkolkata.gov.in

35. Railway Recruitment Cell Kolkata (ER)
Through its Chairman
Having its office at 14 Strand Road, 11th Floor, N.K.G Building,
Kolkata-700001
Email: [email protected] .
Phone: 033-22227747

36. Central Railway
Through its General Manager
Headquarter Office, Central Railway, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj
Terminus (CSMT), Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400001
[email protected]

37. Railway Recruitment Board Mumbai Central Railway
Through Its chairman
ANKI
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.08.
31 10:00:09
+05'30'
T
SAKL
ANI

8
Item No. 48 O.A. No. 939/2026
Court No. IV

Having its office at Divisional Office Compound, Mumbai Central,
Mumbai -400202, Maharashtra
Ph: 022-67644033
Email: www.rrbmumbai.gov.in

38. Railway Recruitment Cell Central Railway
Through its chairman
Having its office at Chief Personnel Officer's Office, 1st Floor, Old
Building, HQ Office, CST, Mumbai - 400001

39. East Central Railway
Through its General Manager
Yusufpur Dighikhurd, East Central Railway Headquarters, Hajipur,
Bihar, 844102

40. Railway Recruitment Board Patna East Central Railway (ECR)
Through Its chairman
Having its office at Mahendrughat Patna-800004.
Ph: 0612-2677011
Email: www.rrbpatna.gov.in

41. Railway Recruitment Cell East Central Railway
Through its Chairman
RRC Office, Nageshwar Colony, Patna-800001, Bihar

42. North Central Railway
Through its General Manager
Having its office at Mandakini Building, North Central Railway Head
Quarter, Prayagraj, 211001.

43. Railway Recruitment Board Prayagraj North Central Railway (NCR)
Through Its chairman
Having its office at Opposite G.M/NCR Building near Subedar Ganj
Railway Hospital, Subedar Ganj Prayagraj-211011(UP)
Ph: 0532-2224531
Email: www.rrbpryj.gov.in

44. Railway Recruitment Cell North Central Railway
Through its Chairman
Having its office at Balmiki Chauraha, Nawab Yusuf Road, Civil
Lines, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh - 211001
ANKI
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.08.
31 10:00:09
+05'30'
T
SAKL
ANI

9
Item No. 48 O.A. No. 939/2026
Court No. IV

45. South Eastern Railway
Through its General Manager
Having its office at 11, Garden Reach Road Kolkata Pin – 700043

46. Railway Recruitment Board Ranchi South Eastern Railway (SER)
Through Its chairman
Having its office at Railway officer complex P.O Chutia Ranchi
Ph: 0651-2462429
Email: www.rrbranchi.gov.in

47. Railway Recruitment Cell South Eastern Railway
Through its Chairman
Having its office at 11, Garden Reach Rd, Orpan Gang Market,
Watganj, Kolkata, West Bengal 700024

48. South Central Railway
Through its General Manager
Having its office at Rail Nilayam, Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad,
Telangana - 500025

49. Railway Recruitment Board Secunderabad South Central Railway
(SCR)
Through its chairman
Having its office at South Lallaguda Secundrabad 500017
Ph: 040-27821663
Email: www.rrbsecunderabad.gov.in
50. Railway Recruitment Cell South Central Railway
Through its chairman
1st Floor, 'C' Block, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad-500025

…Respondents

(By Advocates: Mr. R.V. Sinha with Mr. A.S. Singh & Ms. Shriya Sharma,
Ms. Leelavati Suman with Mr. Nitesh Tiwari, Mr. Vikas Chaurasia and
Mr. Ravi, Clerk)
ANKI
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.08.
31 10:00:09
+05'30'
T
SAKL
ANI

10
Item No. 48 O.A. No. 939/2026
Court No. IV

ORDER
Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :

In the present Original Application, the applicants have prayed for the
following reliefs:
“a) Allow this application.
b) Set-aside / quash the advertisement CEN No.09/2025 inviting
applications for filling up of a total number of 21997 vacancies in the post
of Group-D Level 1 of 7th CPC Pay Matrix out of which reserving a total
of 200 vacancies for visually impaired (low vision only) to the extent it
exclude the blind completely in terms of post parameters for persons with
benchmark disabilities contained in impugned annexure A by declaring
that the same is without jurisdiction being inconsistent and contrary to the
Notification No.16-15/2010-DD-III dt. 04.1.21 issued by respondent No.2
U/S 33 of the Act whereby the subject post has been declared identified
both for blind and low vision for the purposes of 1% reservation under
section 34 of the act as well as Annexure-B thereof reserving certain
number of vacancies in the post of assistant in different departments for
low vision making the reservation for persons with disabilities post based
in violation of law laid down by Hon'ble apex court vide judgment
dt.8.10.2013 (2013)10 SCC 772) declaring the reservation for persons
with disabilities as vacancy based and not post based.

c) Further declare that applicants and other similarly situated blind
persons, if selected, after participation are entitled to be appointed to the
post of assistant in all departments / units of respective zonal railways
against 1% reserved vacancies for persons with visual impairment.

d) Further direct the respondents to issue a corrigendum notifying that
both blind and low vision candidates are eligible to apply for the said post
of assistant in different departments/units of all participating zonal
railways and for consideration for appointment along with the benefit of
reservation of 1% of the total posts advertised on the basis of their
combined merit.

e) Restrain the respondents from proceeding with the selection process for
filling up 1% reserved vacancies for visually impaired category without
modifying impugned advertisement and impugned annexure-A & B to it by
declaring blind and low vision both to be suitable for the post of assistant
in different departments/units of all participating zonal railways and
without issuing corrigendum to the impugned advertisement to that effect.

f) Grant any other relief which Your Lordship deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case.

g) Award the cost.”

2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned senior counsel for the
applicants submitted that the present O.A. has been filed seeking
ANKI
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.08.
31 10:00:09
+05'30'
T
SAKL
ANI

11
Item No. 48 O.A. No. 939/2026
Court No. IV

enforcement of the statutory right of reservation available to persons with
disabilities, particularly persons suffering from blindness/low vision, in
public employment.
2.1. It was submitted that the applicants are visually impaired persons and
are, therefore, entitled to the benefit of reservation under Section 34 of the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Learned senior counsel
contended that despite the statutory scheme of reservation, the respondents,
including the Railway authorities, had failed to properly implement the
reservation earmarked for persons with disabilities, resulting in repeated
litigation concerning non-provision of the requisite reservation for blind
candidates.
2.2. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the statutory scheme of
reservation for persons with disabilities has its genesis in the executive
instructions issued by the Department of Personnel and Training in 1977,
providing for reservation of 3% vacancies in Groups C and D posts,
including 1% for persons suffering from blindness and low vision. It was
thereafter submitted that Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995
mandated reservation of not less than 3% of vacancies, with 1% each for
blindness/low vision, hearing impairment, and locomotor disability/cerebral
palsy.
2.3. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned senior counsel placed
reliance upon the judgment dated 19.12.2008 passed by the Hon’ble High
Court in the proceedings initiated by the National Federation of the Blind,
ANKI
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.08.
31 10:00:09
+05'30'
T
SAKL
ANI

12
Item No. 48 O.A. No. 939/2026
Court No. IV

whereby directions were issued, inter alia, for identification and
computation of backlog vacancies for persons with disabilities and for
undertaking special recruitment drives to fill such backlog. Learned counsel
submitted that the said directions also required strict implementation of the
reservation scheme and appropriate action in case of non-compliance.
2.4. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the aforesaid judgment
was challenged by the Union of India before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Civil Appeal No. 9096 of 2013, which came to be dismissed vide judgment
dated 08.10.2013, reported as (2013) 10 SCC 772 . It was submitted that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, while upholding the directions concerning
implementation of the reservation policy, specifically directed the
appropriate Government to compute the vacancies available in all
establishments, identify the posts for persons with disabilities, and
implement the reservation scheme without default.
2.5. Learned senior counsel also referred to the judgment dated 19.08.2014
in W.P.(C) No. 5111/2014, along with connected matters, concerning
recruitment to Group D posts in the Railways, wherein the Hon’ble High
Court issued directions for keeping 1% of the notified vacancies unfilled
pending determination regarding their applicability to blind and low-vision
candidates and further directed that eligible candidates belonging to the
100% blind category be permitted to participate in the recruitment process.
Learned senior counsel submitted that the said proceedings further
demonstrate the continuing issue of non-implementation of the reservation
contemplated for blind and low-vision candidates in Railway recruitments.
ANKI
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.08.
31 10:00:09
+05'30'
T
SAKL
ANI

13
Item No. 48 O.A. No. 939/2026
Court No. IV

2.6. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the aforesaid judgment
dated 19.08.2014 was followed by Review Petition Nos. 571/2014 and
572/2014, which were disposed of vide order dated 24.12.2014, whereby the
Central Government was directed to reconvene the Expert Committee and
complete the exercise concerning determination of the posts and reservation
for persons with disabilities, giving due consideration to the determination
of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities.
2.7. On the strength of the aforesaid statutory provisions and judicial
pronouncements, learned senior counsel contended that the respondents
were under a binding obligation to implement the prescribed reservation for
persons with disabilities, including the reservation earmarked for blind and
low-vision candidates. It was accordingly submitted that the applicants'
grievance arises from the alleged failure of the respondents to extend the
benefit of such reservation in the recruitment process in question and that
the reliefs sought in the present O.A. deserve to be granted in accordance
with the statutory mandate and the aforesaid judicial directions.
2.8. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants placed reliance upon the
Office Memorandum dated 19.08.2019 issued by respondent No. 2, as well
as the communication dated 14.08.2019 issued by respondent No. 1 and
addressed to all Zonal Railways, to contend that the respondents were
required to ensure proper implementation of the reservation provisions for
persons with disabilities, particularly blind and low-vision candidates.
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents,
submitted that the applicants cannot claim an absolute right to participate in
ANKI
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.08.
31 10:00:09
+05'30'
T
SAKL
ANI

14
Item No. 48 O.A. No. 939/2026
Court No. IV

or seek reservation against posts which have not been identified as suitable
for persons with the Blind sub-category of visual impairment, having regard
to the nature of the duties and functional requirements of the posts in
question.
3.1. It was submitted that the Railways, being a safety-sensitive
organization involving passenger travel, the movement of freight, the
operation of trains, and the maintenance of tracks, is required to prescribe
and adhere to appropriate medical and vision standards, and that any
relaxation in such standards, without regard to operational requirements,
may compromise the safety of passengers, co-employees and the employees
themselves.
3.2 . Learned counsel further submitted that the posts notified under CEN-
09/2025 have been identified in accordance with the Railway Board's letter
No. E(NG)II/2017/RC-211 Policy dated 27.02.2019. It was contended that
the posts designated as Assistant, which were earlier designated as Khalasi
and thereafter as Helper, do not constitute a homogeneous category, as their
nature of duties varies depending upon the department and the working
environment. According to the respondents, a post carrying the same
designation may have entirely different functional requirements; for
instance, when the employee is deployed in an office or store, as compared
to deployment near open railway tracks or yards. The identification of posts
has, therefore, been undertaken keeping in view the actual job profile and
operational requirements.
ANKI
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.08.
31 10:00:09
+05'30'
T
SAKL
ANI

15
Item No. 48 O.A. No. 939/2026
Court No. IV

3.3 . Learned counsel submitted that the posts of Assistant (erstwhile
Khalasi/Helper) notified under CEN-09/2025 fall within the exemption
provided under the DePWD notification dated 04.01.2021, particularly in
respect of Railway personnel involved in the operation of trains,
maintenance of railway tracks, movement of engines and compartments in
yards, telecommunication and signalling works, etc. It was further submitted
that similar exemptions existed even under the earlier notification dated
29.07.2013, and that the said notifications have not been superseded or
modified so as to alter the existing position.
3.4 Learned counsel further contended that the identification of posts is a
periodic exercise undertaken having regard to the job requirements and
operational safety of the Railways. It was submitted that a fresh
identification exercise is presently underway pursuant to the communication
of the DePwD dated 02.05.2025, and that, in accordance with the provisions
of the RPwD Act, 2016, identification has to be undertaken keeping in view
the nature of work performed in the establishment. It was therefore
submitted that, until the said exercise is completed, the existing
identification and exemptions continue to operate.
3.5 . Learned counsel also submitted that the respondents have not adopted a
blanket exclusion of persons with disabilities from Railway recruitment. On
the contrary, various posts under the Centralized Employment Notifications
issued in 2025 have specifically been identified as suitable for candidates
under the Blind sub-category, including Technician Grade III Fitter (OL),
Technician Grade III Fitter (PU & WS), Senior Clerk cum Typist, Junior
ANKI
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.08.
31 10:00:09
+05'30'
T
SAKL
ANI

16
Item No. 48 O.A. No. 939/2026
Court No. IV

Clerk cum Typist, Chief Law Assistant, Public Prosecutor and Junior
Translator (Hindi). It was further pointed out that under CEN-09/2025, 200
posts have already been reserved for the visually impaired category, though,
having regard to the job requirements, those vacancies have been considered
suitable only for the Low Vision disability and not for the Blind sub-
category.
3.6. Learned counsel placed reliance upon Note 8 of the DePwD notification
dated 04.01.2021, which requires the concerned Ministry/Department to
verify the authenticity of the disability certificate and examine the suitability
of a candidate in terms of the functional requirements of the identified post
before appointment. It was thus contended that even where a candidate is
otherwise selected, appointment cannot follow unless the concerned
department is satisfied that the candidate is functionally suitable for the post.
Permitting candidates against posts which have not been identified as
suitable for the Blind sub-category would, therefore, serve no useful purpose
and would only result in permitting participation in a process where the
candidate may ultimately be found unsuitable at the stage of appointment.
3.7. Learned counsel further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4668 of 2007 , Union of India v.
Devendra Kumar Pant & Ors. , wherein it has been held that while the
provisions relating to persons with disabilities are intended to provide a
helping hand so that persons with disabilities may lead a self-reliant life
with dignity and freedom, such provisions cannot be applied in a manner
which jeopardises the safety and security of the public, co-employees or the
ANKI
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.08.
31 10:00:09
+05'30'
T
SAKL
ANI

17
Item No. 48 O.A. No. 939/2026
Court No. IV

employee himself, or the safety and security of the equipment and assets of
the employer, nor can reduced standards of safety and efficiency be
accepted merely on account of the disability of an employee.
3.8 . Learned counsel lastly submitted that the applicants' prayer for
interfering with or postponing the recruitment process is wholly
disproportionate and against public interest. It was pointed out that CEN-
09/2025 covers 22,195 vacancies, against which approximately 52,39,620
applications have been received, whereas only 13 applicants have
approached the Tribunal seeking cancellation/postponement of the
examination. It was further submitted that the Computer Based Test had
already been scheduled from 03.08.2026 to 21.08.2026, across 339 centres
in 147 cities, involving elaborate logistical arrangements, and any
interference at this stage would have serious consequences for the
respondents as well as the large number of candidates, including other
PwBD candidates, who are participating in the recruitment process.
3.9. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the
respondents contended that the applicants have failed to establish any
enforceable right to seek participation against posts which, in terms of the
prevailing identification and exemption notifications, have not been
identified as suitable for the Blind sub-category.
3.10. Learned Counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon the
following judgments in support of his submissions:
ANKI
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.08.
31 10:00:09
+05'30'
T
SAKL
ANI

18
Item No. 48 O.A. No. 939/2026
Court No. IV

(i) Sukh dev Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab , reported as 2003 SCC OnLine
P&H 1768 (Full Bench);
(ii) Ranbir Chandra v. Union of India & Ors. , reported as ILR (1978) II
Delhi 241;
(iii) Sagar Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. , reported as 2025 SCC
OnLine Del 88697;
(iv) Ashok Kumar Bajpai v. Dr. (Smt.) Ranjana Bajpai , reported as 2003
SCC OnLine All 1296;
(v) Order dated 06.02.2025 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in
W.P. No. 9994/2024, titled Nand Lal Luhar & Ors. v. Western Railway
& Ors .; and
(vi) Union of India v. Devendra Kumar Pant & Ors ., reported as (2009)
14 SCC 546.
4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the
pleadings available on record.
5. ANALYSIS :
5.1. It cannot be said that the respondents have denied or dispensed with the
statutory reservation available to persons with benchmark disabilities. On
the contrary, reservation has been provided for persons falling within the
visual disability category; however, having regard to the nature and
functional requirements of the posts in question, the 1% reservation under
the visual impairment category has been earmarked for candidates with Low
Vision. The grievance of the applicants, therefore, essentially concerns the
ANKI
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.08.
31 10:00:09
+05'30'
T
SAKL
ANI

19
Item No. 48 O.A. No. 939/2026
Court No. IV

exclusion of persons suffering from 100% blindness from consideration
against the posts notified under the present recruitment.
5.2. In this regard, considerable significance attaches to the Office
Memorandum dated 04.03.2015, which was issued pursuant to the directions
contained in the order dated 24.12.2014 passed by the Hon’ble High Court
in the matter of CM No. 21081/2014 and 21080/2014 in W.P. (C) No.
5111/2014- UOI & ors. Vs. Tara Chauhan & others and rev. Pt. No.
572/2014, CM Nos. 21082/2014 and 21083 in W.P. (C) No. 5162/2014. In
pursuance thereof, a Committee was constituted to undertake the exercise
relating to the identification of posts, and the Committee included, inter alia,
Senior Counsel Shri S.K. Rungta as a Member. Upon detailed deliberations,
the Committee recorded its findings with regard to the categories of posts
which could not be identified as suitable for particular categories of persons
with disabilities. The relevant portion of the said Office Memorandum,
reads as under:
“ 8. Shri Rungta member of the committee and General Secretary of NFB
on the other hand submitted that in the first place, there cannot be a
general exclusion of all posts of Khalasi Helper in Electric, Mechanical
and signal & Telecom Departments. At best, Khalasi Helper required to
be appointed only for work on tracksOperation and maintenance of trains
could be excluded from identification of posts for the blind and low vision.
Further, the committee should clarify that posts of Khalasi mentioned at
Serial no. 86 of the list of group 'D' identified post in the earlier report of
committee referred to shipping industry and not to railway department
and therefore it cannot be treated as not having been identified for the
Blind including 100% blind in railways. On the contrary at Serial No. 80
of the lists of Group D posts identified suitable for PWDs as notified vide
notification dated 29.07.2013, the post of Helper has been identified for
blind and low vision both including 100% blind and therefore Railway
cannot treat the post of helper as not identified for the blind and low
vision including 100% blind merely because Khalasi at S.No. 86 has not
been identified for the blind. He further submitted that in fact the posts of
Khalasi Helper advertised through the advertisements in questions by
Railways is substantially the post of helper which stands identified for the
blind and low vision both.
ANKI
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.08.
31 10:00:09
+05'30'
T
SAKL
ANI

20
Item No. 48 O.A. No. 939/2026
Court No. IV


9. As regards the posts of DSL Khalasi, the representative from Ministry
of Railways submitted that the nature of duties of such posts involve
physical checking of safety items of diesel locos, assistant technicians in
conducting repairs in pits and on platforms. The post of DSL cleaner
(mechanical) and Carriage Cleaner (mechanical) involve coach cleaning
work, critical visual inspection of various areas in the coach and
coaching yard. The work also required involvement of the staff through
narrow passages in the coach, along the coach and beneath the coach as
well. These are safety category post for which assigned medical
classification is B1.

10. Shri Rungta on the other hand submitted that as already mentioned
with regard to Khalasi helper in Electrical, Signal and Telecom
department, the appointments to be made for work on tracks, yard and
trains only could be declared as not identified for blind and low vision for
safety reasons and not on the ground of suitability. He further mentioned
that the medical categorization should not be the basis for the exercise of
identification as the medical standards prescribed for various posts in any
department of the government automatically stands relaxed for PWD in
view of their respective disabilities.

11. With respect to the post of Khalasi Helper in the workshops in various
department such as mechanical and S&T, it was submitted by the
representative of Ministry of Railways that these posts involve assisting
the maintenance staff in the workshop. Some of the posts involve safety
requirement whereas some of the posts do have low safety grading. The
medical classification of these posts is C-1.

12. Shri Rungta on the other hand maintained that the post of Khalasi
Helper in all workshops of railways including mechanical, Signal &
Telecom and Civil Engineering workshops are suitable for blind and low
vision both including 100% blind persons. Appointments have also been
made in the past in these workshops for example in DLW Varanasi
various blind persons have been appointed and are still working.
Furthermore, the function of Khalasi Helper in these workshops in mostly
performed in the team. There are no safety concerns as is been claimed by
Railways. As such the post of Khalasi Helper in all kinds of workshops
which are equivalent to already identified posts of unskilled worker, have
already been identified in the earlier report of the committee as suitable
for blind and low vision.

13. As regards the post of Khalasi Helper (stores), the representatives of
Ministry of Railways informed the Committee that the nature of job
involves outdoor, strenuous, physical activities of carrying the material
from one place to another. Besides he should be able to understand
sensitivity of the material being carried by him. As for examples, handling
of glass and grease require total visual acuity. The post has a medical
classification of C1.

14. Shri Rungta on the other hand contended that in the first place for the
post of store attendant at S No. 59 of the earlier report of the committee
which is equivalent or even higher than the post of Khalasi Helper in the
stores has been identified by the committee as suitable for blind and low
vision both including 100% blind. As such, the post of khalasi helper
stores in railways already stand identified in the earlier report of the
committee.

ANKI
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.08.
31 10:00:09
+05'30'
T
SAKL
ANI

21
Item No. 48 O.A. No. 939/2026
Court No. IV

15. With respect to the post of Safaiwala in medical department the
submission of the railways was that the nature of job involves sweeping
the roads, grounds, floor etc. in the hospital/health unit, supplying bed
pains and urine bottles to the patients and cleansing thereof etc. The
medical grading on the basis of safety requirement for the post is C-1.

16. Shri Rungta on the other hand maintained that the post of safaiwala in
any department already stand identified for blind and low vision both
including 100% blind at S No. 103 of the earlier report of the committee
and therefore this post already stands identified for the blind and low
vision including 100% blind.

17. As regards, the post of Hospital Attendant (both male and female) the
representative of Railways submitted that the nature of job is to keep the
ward clean, sponge the patient in the absence of nurse, preparing bed,
taking temperature etc. under the supervision of nurse, giving
active/passive exercise to the patients under guidance. The medical
classification of the post is C-1.

18. Shri Rungta on the other hand maintained that the pos of hospiotal
attendant has also been identified as the equivalent post attendant stands
identified for blind and low vision in the earlier reports of the committee
at S.No. 109. Further he also informed that blind persons have already
been appointed in many hospitals as hospital attendant including in GB
Pant Hospital and therefore this post stands identified for blind and low
vision.

19. The committee was informed by Director, IPH that against some of
the Group D posts, it has been mentioned in the notification dated
29.07.2013 that such posts are not identified by Railway Personnel who
are involved in operation of train, maintenance of rail track and
movement of engines and compartments in yards, telecommunication and
signaling works. This implies that only in such cases, the posts may not be
suitable for persons with visual impairment. This should not be
misconducted by Ministry of Railways as an exemption from Section 33 of
PWD Act.

20. The Expert Committee after deliberation concluded that the posts such
as Khalasi Helper in various Departments involved in line operations do
possess high safety risks not only from the perspective of the employee
point of view but also in the larger perspective of passenger safety.
Accordingly, these posts have significantly higher medical classification
of B1. It would be appropriate if these posts are limited to those PWDs
who could qualify the desired physical requirement. As such, these posts
may not be identified suitable for visually impaired persons. Similar is the
case for the posts of DSL Khalasi and Carriage Cleaner which involve
line operations. This was also agreed to by Shri S.K. Rungta, member of
the Committee who also represents the National Federation of Blind.

....

24. After detailed deliberation, the Committee decided to restrict its
recommendations only in respect of those posts which were under dispute
in Delhi High Court especially with respect to the identification or
otherwise for persons with blindness or low vision only. Accordingly, the
committee unanimously made the following recommendations:-

ANKI
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.08.
31 10:00:09
+05'30'
T
SAKL
ANI

22
Item No. 48 O.A. No. 939/2026
Court No. IV

Sl.
No.
Name of the
Department Recommendations
Post
The post is suitable for
persons with blindness and
low vision.
Mechanical (W), S &
1 Khalasi Helper
T (W), Engg. (W)
The post is suitable for
persons with blindness and
low vision.
2 Safaiwala Medical
The post is suitable for
persons with blindness and
low vision.
3 Khalasi Helper Stores
The post is suitable for
persons with blindness and
low vision.
Hospital
4 Medical
Attendant (male)
Hospital
Attendant
(Female)
The post is suitable for
persons with blindness and
low vision.
5
Medical
Cannot be identified
suitable for persons with
Visual Impairment since
the posts involve line
operations and train
operations.
Civil Engg.,
Electrical,
Mechanical, Signal
and Telecom
6 Khalasi Helper
Cannot be identified
suitable for persons with
Visual Impairment since
the posts involve line
operations and train
operations.
7 DSL Khalasi Mechanical
Cannot be identified
suitable for persons with
Visual Impairment since
the posts involve line
operations and train
operations.
8 Khalasi Helper Engg.
Cannot be identified
suitable for persons with
Visual Impairment since
the posts involve line
operations and train
operations.
Carriage
Cleaner and
DSL cleaner
9
Mechanical
5.3 Furthermore, in W.P.(C) No. 9994/2024 and connected matters, titled
Nand Lal Luhar & Ors. v. Western Railway & Ors . , decided on 1st July,
2025, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi observed as under:
“ 26.2 Element of public interest
We cannot be unmindful of the fact that we are dealing with the Railways,
and that the posts to which the petitioners aspire are not desk jobs. As the
Tribunal has correctly observed, the posts which, according to Annexure
ANKI
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.08.
31 10:00:09
+05'30'
T
SAKL
ANI

23
Item No. 48 O.A. No. 939/2026
Court No. IV

A to the CEN, were not suitable for being manned by blind candidates,
are posts which involved handling of machinery or other such activities
which a person who is completely blind would be unable to perform.
Even otherwise, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the
respondents in that regard. While it is our avowed constitutional goal to
make every effort at promoting inclusivity of persons who are differently
abled, we have also to bear in mind the element of public interest that
pervades every such consideration. The appointment of a person who,
owing to one reason or the other, is physically unable to manage the
post, in the Railways, can result in untold public harm and may possibly
also endanger the life and limb of the public who use the Railways. There
is an overwhelming element of public interest involved, which has to be
balanced against the rights of the petitioners to inclusion in the
mainstream.
26.3 Re. DEPWD OM dated 4 March 2015
Apropos the DEPWD OM dated 4 March 2015, Ms. Arora points out that
the said OM itself clarifies that the posts of Khalasi Helper in the
Electrical, Mechanical and Engineering, Signal and Telecom
Departments of the Railways were not suitable for blind candidates,
suffering from 100% visual impairment. We find, on a reading of the OM
dated 4 March 2015, that this is correct. It does not, therefore, even
appear, on facts, that the decision to exclude certain posts from the reach
of candidates who are completely blind, in Annexure A to the CEN, was
vitiated by any arbitrariness or illegality. It is a decision which was taken
on the basis of the DEPWD OM dated 4 March 2015, which was
preceded by the constitution of an Expert Committee, following the
directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in Tara Chauhan .
By no standards, therefore, can it be said that the decision was arbitrary.
26.4 Reservation and identification – Sections 34 and 33 of the RPWD
Act
26.4.1 The distinction between identification and bifurcation, to which
Mr. Rungta sought to repeatedly draw our attention appears, to us to be
a distinction more of form than of substance. Section 33(i) of the RPWD
Act specifically empowers the appropriate government to “identify posts
in the establishments which can be held by respective category of persons
with benchmark disabilities in respect of the vacancies reserved in
accordance with the provisions of Section 34”. Section 33, therefore, in a
sense follows Section 34. Expressed otherwise, the exercise of
identification in Section 33 is the second step, after the first step of
reservation in Section 34.
26.4.2 Section 34 obligates the government to reserve 1% of the total
number of vacancies to be filled for candidates with blindness and LV. As
Ms. Arora correctly points out, as 171 vacancies, out of 10734, were
reserved for VI candidates, the mandate of Section 34(1)(a) stood
satisfied.
26.4.3 Thereafter, under Section 33(i), the appropriate government is
vested with the power of identifying posts in the establishment which can
be held by persons having specific benchmark disabilities, in respect of
the vacancies reserved in accordance with Section 34. In other words,
out of 1% vacancies reserved under Section 34(1)(a) for persons
suffering from blindness or LV, Section 33(i) empowers the appropriate
government to identify posts which can be held by specific categories of
persons with benchmark disabilities. The exercise of identification under
ANKI
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.08.
31 10:00:09
+05'30'
T
SAKL
ANI

24
Item No. 48 O.A. No. 939/2026
Court No. IV

Section 33(i), therefore, succeeds the exercise of reservation under
Section 34(1)(a).
26.4.4 Identification is, statutorily, of posts, not of vacancies. It is this
fundamental distinction that the submissions of Mr. Rungta tend to
obfuscate. Reservation under Section 34 is of vacancies; identification
under Section 33 is of posts. From among the vacancies reserved under
Section 34(1), for the various categories of disabilities, post-wise
identification of categories of persons suffering from specific physical
disabilities suitable to the post, can be carried out by the appropriate
government under Section 34(1). This identification is, therefore, strictly
on a post-wise basis. It is this exercise which stands manifested in
Annexure A to the CEN.
26.4.5 Such post-wise identification, from among the reserved vacancies,
is, therefore, statutorily permissible. It does not convert the exercise of
reservation for persons with disabilities from a vacancy based to a post-
based exercise, as Mr Rungta would seek to contend.
The exercise of reservation continues to remain a vacancy based
exercise; it is only the exercise of identification from the reserved
vacancies, of posts which are suitable, or not suitable, for persons
suffering from particular types of disabilities, which is post-based.
Both these exercises are statutorily envisaged and permissible, under
Section 34(1) and Section 33 of the RPWD Act respectively.
26.4.6 That being so, Mr. Rungta’s contention that Annexure A to the
CEN infracts Sections 33 and 34 of the RPWD Act, as they convert the
exercise of reservation for PWDs from a vacancy-based to a post-based
exercise, is devoid of substance.
26.4.7 The decisions in Ravi Prakash Gupta and National Federation of
the Blind , in fact, permit such post based identification of reserved
vacancies. Para 29 of Ravi Prakash Gupta sets out the principle that
applies, thus:
“29. While it cannot be denied that unless posts are identified for the
purposes of Section 33 of the aforesaid Act, no appointments from the
reserved categories contained therein can be made, and that to such
extent the provisions of Section 33 are dependent on Section 32 of the
Act, as submitted by the learned ASG, but the extent of such dependence
would be for the purpose of making appointments and not for the purpose
of making reservation. In other words, reservation under Section 33 of
the Act is not dependent on identification, as urged on behalf of the
Union of India, though a duty has been cast upon the appropriate
Government to make appointments in the number of posts reserved for
the three categories mentioned in Section 33 of the Act in respect of
persons suffering from the disabilities spelt out therein.
In fact, a situation has also been noticed where on account of non-
availability of candidates some of the reserved posts could remain vacant
in a given year. For meeting such eventualities, provision was made to
carry forward such vacancies for two years after which they would lapse.
Since in the instant case such a situation did not arise and posts were not
reserved under Section 33 of the Disabilities Act, 1995, the question of
carrying forward of vacancies or lapse thereof, does not arise.”
(Emphasis supplied)
ANKI
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.08.
31 10:00:09
+05'30'
T
SAKL
ANI

25
Item No. 48 O.A. No. 939/2026
Court No. IV

This passage eloquently chalks out the distinction between reservation
and identification. Identification is of posts. It follows reservation, which
is of vacancies. Before making appointments, identification of posts is
necessary. The concluding part of the paragraph, which recognizes the
possibility of carrying forward unfilled reserved vacancies,
acknowledges the fact that reservation does not by itself create a right to
appointment, and that it is only if, after post-based identification, suitable
posts are available, that the reserved candidate has a right even to
consideration for appointment against such identified post. If, despite
reservation, identified posts are not available, the unfilled posts may
have to be carried forward.
26.4.8 National Federation of the Blind involved an issue, as set out in
para 30 of the report, of “whether the reservation provided for the
disabled persons under Section 33 of the Act54 is dependent upon the
identification of posts as stipulated by Section 32”. After referring to
Ravi Prakash Gupta , the Supreme Court held, in para 31 of the report,
thus:
“31. In the light of the above pronouncement, it is clear that the scope of
identification comes into picture only at the time of appointment of a
person in the post identified for disabled persons and is not necessarily
relevant at the time of computing 3% reservation under Section 33 of the
Act. In succinct, it was held in Ravi Prakash Gupta that Section 32 of the
Act is not a precondition for computation of reservation of 3% under
Section 33 of the Act rather Section 32 is the following effect of Section
33.”
(Emphasis supplied)

Further, in para 33.2, it is observed that “out of minimum 3% of
vacancies of posts in the establishments 1% each has to be given to each
of the 3 categories of disability viz. blind and low vision, hearing
impaired and locomotor disabled or cerebral palsy separately and the
number of appointments equivalent to the 1% for each disability out of
total 3% has to be made against the vacancies in the identified posts”. If
no vacancy in identified posts is available, ergo, there can be no
appointment.
26.4.9 Para 38 of the report in National Federation of the Blind
exemplifies this, illustratively, thus:

“38. To illustrate, if there are 100 vacancies of 100 posts in an
establishment, the establishment concerned will have to reserve a
minimum of 3% for persons with disabilities out of which at least 1% has
to be reserved separately for each of the following disabilities: persons
suffering from blindness or low vision, persons suffering from hearing
impairment and the persons suffering from locomotor disability or
cerebral palsy. Appointment of 1 blind person against 1 vacancy reserved
for him/her will be made against a vacancy in an identified post for
instance, the post of peon, which is identified for him in Group D.
Similarly, one hearing impaired will be appointed against one reserved
vacancy for that category in the post of Store Attendant in Group D post.
Likewise, one person suffering from locomotor disability or cerebral
palsy will be appointed against the post of “Farash”, Group D post
identified for that category of disability. It was argued on behalf of the
ANKI
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.08.
31 10:00:09
+05'30'
T
SAKL
ANI

26
Item No. 48 O.A. No. 939/2026
Court No. IV

Union of India with reference to the post of driver that since the said post
is not suitable to be manned by a person suffering from blindness, the
above interpretation of the section would be against the administrative
exigencies. Such an argument is wholly misconceived. A given post may
not be identified as suitable for one category of disability, the same could
be identified as suitable for another category or categories of disability
entitled to the benefit of reservation. In fact, the second part of the
section has clarified this situation by providing that the number of
vacancies equivalent to 1% for each of the aforementioned three
categories will be filled up by the respective category by using vacancies
in identified posts for each of them for the purposes of appointment.”
(Emphasis supplied)
26.4.10 Identification is, therefore, indispensable, before appointment
can take place. In fact, the above decisions specifically require that the
exercise of reservation must precede the exercise of identification. That is
precisely what has happened in the present case. By way of reservation,
171 vacancies out of 10734 vacancies were reserved for VI candidates.
Out of the vacancies so reserved, post wise identification under Section
34(1)(a), of the posts which were suitable for candidates who were blind
or suffering from LV, and the posts which were suitable for candidates
who were suffering from LV but were not blind, has been undertaken.
Annexure A is the outcome thereof.
26.5 There is, therefore, no illegality in Annexure A to the CEN, as Mr.
Rungta would seek to contend.”
We are also cognizant of the fact that a Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No. 27470/2025, arising out of the above impugned final judgment and
order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 9994/2024, titled Nand Lal Luhar & Ors. v. Western
Railway & Ors. , came to be filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The
Apex Court, vide its interim order dated 27.10.2025, while issuing notice,
was pleased to direct that 12 vacancies in the category of Blind and Low
Vision be kept vacant against the identified posts. Subsequently, vide a
further interim order dated 25.05.2026, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed
that, in the event the posts are identified and vacancies are available in any
recruitment, the interim order dated 27.10.2025 shall also apply to such
recruitment .
ANKI
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.08.
31 10:00:09
+05'30'
T
SAKL
ANI

27
Item No. 48 O.A. No. 939/2026
Court No. IV

5.4 The aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 04.03.2015 has not been
shown to have been superseded, rescinded, or revoked. The mere issuance
of a subsequent Office Memorandum dated 04.01.2021, by itself, cannot be
construed as conferring an indefeasible right upon the applicants to seek a
fresh identification of the posts in question, particularly when the existing
identification has not been displaced in accordance with law. Learned senior
counsel has placed considerable reliance upon Notes 1, 2 and 5 of the
subsequent Gazette Notification dated 04.01.2021 of the Ministry of Social
Justice and Empowerment (Department of Empowerment of Persons with
Disabilities (Divyangjan), which reads as under:
“Note 1: Persons with benchmark disabilities require aids and assistive
devices to overcome their difficulties. The aids and assistive devices may
be provided to persons with benchmark disabilities on their appointment
keeping In view their requirement as per the instructions of DoPT issued
from time to time.
Note 2: The list of posts being notified is only indicative and not an
exhaustive list. If a post is not mentioned in the list, it is not to be
construed that it has been exempted. Central Ministries, Departments,
Autonomous Bodies, Public Sector Undertakings may futher-supplement
the list by adding to the list of posts identified for respective category of
disability.
Note 5 If a post having identical nature and place of job with respect to
any identified post, the post should be construed to be identified even if
the post has a different nomenclature and/or is placed in a different
group.
5.5 We are of the view that the subsequent Gazette Notification dated
4.1.2021 cannot be read in isolation so as to nullify the exercise already
undertaken with regard to the functional suitability of the posts. More
importantly, the nature of the posts in question also assumes significance. It
is not in dispute that the post of Helper/Khalasi was subsequently re-
categorised as Assistant. The mere change in nomenclature due to merger,
however, does not, by itself alter the functional character of the post. The
ANKI
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.08.
31 10:00:09
+05'30'
T
SAKL
ANI

28
Item No. 48 O.A. No. 939/2026
Court No. IV

post parameters identified in the earlier exercise pertained to technical and
field duties in the Electrical/S&T, Traffic, Engineering, and Mechanical
Departments, which are technical job. Having regard to the nature of such
duties and the functional requirements attached thereto, the Low Vision
category has been found suitable, whereas persons suffering from 100%
blindness have not been included. Thus, the material on record does not
disclose any denial of the statutory reservation to persons with disabilities.
Rather, the reservation has been implemented with reference to the posts
identified as suitable, keeping in view their functional requirements. In the
absence of any material demonstrating that the existing identification has
been superseded or that the posts in question have subsequently been
identified as suitable for persons suffering from 100% blindness, we find no
legal basis to direct the respondents to treat the applicants as eligible for
reservation against the posts notified under CEN-09/2025.
6. CONCLUSION :
6.1. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we dismiss the present O.A as
devoid of merits.
6.2. Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.

(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)

/ as /
ANKI
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.08.
31 10:00:09
+05'30'
T
SAKL
ANI