Teklal Kumar Das vs The Secretary Union Public Service Commission And Ors
- Court
- Bombay High Court
CNR No : HCBM010008472025
2026:BHC-AS:44811-DB
WP-2665-2025 (C)-JF.doc
PANCHAL
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally
signed by
BALAJI
GOVINDRAO
PANCHAL
Date:
2026.11.03
18:32:31
+0530
WRIT PETITION NO. 2665 OF 2025
BALAJI
GOVINDRAO
PANCHAL
Teklal Kumar Das ]
S/o Bhuneshwar Ravidas ]
Age-26 yrs., Occupation-Student, ]
Residing at MW-32-A, Building No.01, ]
Behind Hostel 15, Hill Side Area ]
IIT-Bombay Campus, Powai, ]
Mumbai -400 076. ]
Aadhar Card No.402844671536 ]
PAN Card No.FTFPD0316H ]
Email: [email protected] ]
[email protected] ]
Mobile-8581048380 ] ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. The Secretary, ]
Union Public Service Commission ]
A body constituted under the ]
relevant Provision of Constitution ]
of India, Having its office at ]
New Delhi, Dholpur House, ]
Shahjahan Road ]
New Delhi – 110 011. ]
2. The Secretary ]
Government of India, Ministry of ]
Mines, Room No.320-A-Wing, ]
Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi-110 001.]
3. The Director General ]
Geological Survey of India ]
27, JL Nehru Road, ]
Kolkata – 700 016. ]
4. The Chairperson ]
Central Standing Medical Board ]
1
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:55:44
WP-2665-2025 (C)-JF.doc
Safdarjung Hospital & VMCC ]
Old Building, Near Accounts ]
Department, Adjacent to I.V. ]
Fluid Department ]
New Delhi – 110 029. ]
5. Union of India ]
Through the Law Ministry ]
Marine Lines, Mumbai ] ... RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. Anjani Kumar Singh a/w Ms. Vritika Bhatia i/by Ms.
Shilpa Prashant Gaikwad, for the Petitioner.
Dr. Vinod Joshi a/w Ms. Gayatri Khanwilkar, Ms. Roma
Salunke & Ms. Valissa Alphanso, for the Respondent No. 1.
Mr. Pranil Sonawane a/w Ms. Vedashree Phadke & Ms.
Vaishnavi Dalvi, for Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 5.
...
CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.
th
RESERVED ON : 13 OCTOBER, 2026.
rd
PRONOUNCED ON : 3 NOVEMBER, 2026.
JUDGMENT (Per, Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, CJ.)
1.
Heard Mr. Anjani Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the
Petitioner, Dr. Vinod Joshi, learned Counsel for the
Respondent No. 1 and and Mr. Pranil Sonawane, for
Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 5.
2.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, with the consent
2
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:55:44
WP-2665-2025 (C)-JF.doc
of parties. Heard finally.
3.
The instant Writ Petition is preferred questioning the
st
validity of the order dated 1 October, 2024 passed by Central
Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai (for short
“ Tribunal ”) in Original Application No. 1094 of 2024 (for short
“ Impugned Order ”), whereby the Tribunal rejected the
th
Petitioner’s challenge to the communication dated 30 August,
2023 issued by Respondent No.2 Ministry of Mines,
Government of India, rejecting the Petitioner’s candidature for
appointment as Geophysicist in the Geological Survey of India
through Combined Geo-Scientist Examination, 2022 (for short
“ CGSE-2022 ”) on the ground of non-fulfillment of the
functional requirements of the post.
A. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE :-
4.
The Petitioner holds a M.Sc. in Applied Geophysics,
th
completed on 20 August, 2022 and belongs to the Scheduled
Caste category. The Petitioner as per his latest Medical
th
Certificate dated 9 April 2024 is certified to be 55% physically
handicapped person.
5.
As per the Examination Notice No. 02/2022-GEOL dated
3
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:55:44
WP-2665-2025 (C)-JF.doc
nd
22 September 2021 published by the Respondent No.1-
Union Public Service Commission (for short “ UPSC ”) , three
vacancies for post of Geophysicist- Group ‘A’ were reserved for
candidates with Locomotor Disability or Cerebral Palsy [OH
(OA/OL)]. The Petitioner being eligible for the same applied for
the post of Geophysicist- Group ‘A’.
6.
The Petitioner appeared for Stage-I-Preliminary
Examination of UPSC Combined Geo-Scientist Examination for
th
the post of Geophysicist, Group-A on 20 February 2022
thereafter cleared the Stage-I examination and appeared in
th
Stage-II Main Examination which was held on 25 June 2022
th
and 26 June 2022. The Petitioner qualified the preliminary
and main examination of CGSE-2022, thereafter the
Petitioner’s name was shortlisted to appear for personality test
th
at UPSC Bhavan on 17 January, 2023.
7.
The final result was declared by Respondent No.1-UPSC
st
on 31 January, 2023 where the Petitioner’s name was
recommended by the Respondent No.1- UPSC for the post of
Geophysicist (Group ‘A’) in Geological Survey of India under
Ministry of Mines (Government of India).
4
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:55:44
WP-2665-2025 (C)-JF.doc
8.
The Petitioner’s medical examination for the said post
th
was conducted on 29 April 2023 at Safdarjung Hospital
before the Committee of “Central Standing Medical Board” (for
short “ CSMB ”) i.e Respondent No.4, at New Delhi.
9.
Subsequently, the Respondents declared the result of
medical examination of the qualified candidates of the CGSE-
th
2022 on official website of Ministry of Mines dated 5 July,
2023, in which Petitioner’s name find place at Sr. No. 158 with
the result shown as ‘Pending’. As the result of Petitioner was
not declared/ kept pending, he contacted to the Section Officer
from the department and inquired whether the department has
received the updated report from CSMB. The Section Officer
responded that the department had received the updated
report and CSMB has mentioned therein that the Petitioner is
fit under Physically Handicapped (for short “ PH ”) category with
55% both leg disability.
10.
The Petitioner was certified as Fit under PH Category with
th
a noting of (BL 55%) by the CSMB Medical Report dated 29
April 2023.
th
11.
Thereafter, the Petitioner received a communication 30
5
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:55:44
WP-2665-2025 (C)-JF.doc
August, 2023 from the Respondent No.2- Ministry of Mines
stating that the Petitioner’s candidature is not considered for
appointment to the post of Geophysicist in Geological Survey
of India through CGE-2022 due to non-fulfillment the
functional requirement of the post.
12.
The said communication was assailed by the
Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 12744 of 2023. The Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court disposed of the said matter vide order
th
dated 4 December, 2023 relegating the Petitioner to approach
the Tribunal. Consequently, the Original Application No. 15 of
2024 was preferred by the Petitioner before the Tribunal,
th
which was disposed of vide order dated 19 January, 2024
directing the Respondent No. 2- Ministry of Mines to decide the
representation of the Petitioner within two months.
rd
13.
By a speaking order dated 3 April, 2024, the
th
representation made by the Petitioner dated 5 February 2024
was rejected inter-alia due to non- fulfillment of functional
classification for the post of Geophysicist by the Petitioner.
rd
14.
The speaking order dated 3 April, 2024 was challenged
on various grounds by the Petitioner before the Tribunal by
6
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:55:44
WP-2665-2025 (C)-JF.doc
filing Original Application No. 1094 of 2024.
15.
The Tribunal dismissed the said Original Application No.
st
1094 of 2024 vide Impugned Order dated 1 October, 2024,
which is assailed in the instant proceeding. For ready
reference, the Impugned Order dated is reproduced
hereunder :-
“We have heard learned counsel for the applicant at
the admission stage.
2. The applicant had made application for the post of
Geophysicist in GSI through Combined Geoscientific
Examination 2022. The applicant has 55%
disability. His both legs are affected. The
respondents rejected the candidature of the
applicant on the ground that the candidate does not
fulfill the requirement. According to respondents, the
requirement is HH- Hard of Hearing or OL-One leg
affected or OA-One arm affected as identified for
performing the duties associated with the post of
Geophysicist in GSI.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant has been declared by Medical Board as fit
and he is capable of performing all kinds of works.
We do not find any force in this submission. The
requirement for the post of Geophysicist is the one
mentioned above. The applicant does not answer
these requirements. Therefore, his application was
rightly rejected. OA is, without any substance.
Hence, it is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
Pending MAs, if any, stand closed.”
16.
The record reflects that the Co-ordinate Bench has issued
th th
a notice on 27 February, 2025 returnable on 27 March,
2025. Thereafter the matter was listed on various dates and on
account of paucity of time, the matter could not be taken up.
7
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:55:44
WP-2665-2025 (C)-JF.doc
th
Subsequently, the same was taken on 24 September, 2025
where an interim relief was accorded to the Petitioner by
directing the Respondent No.2 not to fill up the post for which
the Petitioner was selected by the UPSC till the next date of
hearing.
B. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER :-
17.
Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner would vehemently contend
that Tribunal has failed to appreciate and even not discussed
the fact that the Petitioner, who is suffering from 55%
disability had not only successfully passed the physical
requirement test conducted at the time of his medical
examination, but in fact is declared medically fit under PH
category (BL 55%) by the Respondent No.4- CSMB.
18.
He would submit that while passing the Impugned Order,
the Tribunal has utterly failed to appreciate that the Petitioner,
who had not only qualified the preliminary and main
examination of CGSE-2022 but had also cleared the
th
personality test on 17 January, 2023 and thereafter he was
duly recommended by the Respondent No.1-UPSC for the post
of Geophysicist, Group-A in the Geological Survey of India
8
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:55:44
WP-2665-2025 (C)-JF.doc
under Ministry of Mines.
19.
Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the
th
Petitioner had submitted online RTI Application on 4
September 2023 seeking copy of Medical Report sent to the
th
Respondent No. 2 after 9 August 2023 and also seeking list of
physically challenged candidates with locomotors disability
appointed to the post of Geophysicist in GSI since 2014. To
this, the Respondent No.2 vide its reply dated 22 September
2022 stated that no such information and list is available on
record further such information does not come under the
purview of Right to Information Act, 2005.
20.
He would submit that the medical examination was
conducted under the aegis of the Respondent No.4- CSMB,
which had declared the Petitioner Fit under PH category (BL
55%), since disability is above 40% as per gazette guidelines.
21.
He would further submit that once the Respondent No.4-
CSMB declared the Petitioner medically fit for the post, the
Respondent No. 2 could not have rejected the candidature of
the Petitioner.
22.
He would further submit that the Tribunal has utterly
9
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:55:44
WP-2665-2025 (C)-JF.doc
failed to take even note of the factual aspect that the Petitioner
has cleared all three stages of the CGSE, 2022 and was duly
recommended by the Respondent No.1- UPSC for appointment
to the post of Geophysicist.
23.
Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the
post in question requires primary three duties i.e. (i)
Acquisition of geophysical data and subsurface mapping using
appropriate geophysical methods which require a field work;
(ii) Processing of acquired geophysical data which is an office
desk job; and (iii) Modelling and preparation of interpretive
maps and documenting of conclusions which is again an office
desk job.
24.
He would further submit that the Tribunal failed to
appreciate the fact that about two third i.e. 70% duties of a
Geophysicist group are of office desk job and as such under
PH category with 55% with both legs disability, the Petitioner
can perform the duties of field work with utmost dedication
and hard work.
25.
Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon CSMB Medical
Report and has consistently claimed before the concerned
10
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:55:44
WP-2665-2025 (C)-JF.doc
authority as well as before the Tribunal that he is capable to
perform all activities meant for Geophysicist without any major
external support and had also performed geological field work
at Chunar, Mirzapur and Sonbhadra districts of Uttar Pradesh
at the time of pursuing his B.Sc. degree course at Banaras
Hindu University, Varanasi in 2018 and 2019.
26.
Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the
Tribunal has failed to consider the principle of Reasonable
Accommodation as established by the Supreme Court in
catena of decisions. He would submit that the principle of
Reasonable Accommodation is not only statutorily prescribed
but also rooted in the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to
persons with disabilities under Part III of the Constitution of
India. In support of the above, the Ld. Counsel for the
Petitioner would rely on the decisions of the Supreme Court in
1
Sujata Bora Vs. Coal India Limited and Others , Omkar
2
Ramchandra Gond Vs. Union of India and Om Rathod Vs.
3
Director General of Health Services and Others .
27.
Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that
1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 58
2 2024 INSC 775
3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3130
11
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:55:44
WP-2665-2025 (C)-JF.doc
Impugned Order is liable to be quashed and set aside and
accordingly the Respondents concerned be directed to permit
the Petitioner to join the post of Geophysicist Group-A as the
same is already kept vacant in view of the interim order dated
th
24 September 2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court.
C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS :-
28.
Per contra , learned Counsel for the Respondents would
resist the reliefs sought by the Petitioner and submit that the
th
communication dated 30 August 2023 issued by the
Respondent No.2- Ministry of Mines as well as the Impugned
Order are sustainable, as the eligibility criteria for post of
nd
Geophysicist as per Examination Notice dated 22 September,
2021 clearly specified that only candidate with functional
classification such as HH- Hard Hearing, OL- One Leg affected
or OA- One Arm affected are eligible for appointment, whereas
the Petitioner’s disability classification of BL (Both Legs
affected) does not meet this criteria.
29.
Ld. Counsel for the Respondents would submit that the
th
the communication dated 30 August, 2023 rejecting the
12
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:55:44
WP-2665-2025 (C)-JF.doc
Petitioner’s candidature was made in full compliance with the
applicable rules and regulations.
30.
Ld. Counsel for the Respondents would further
submit that as the entire claim is set up on the basis of the
CSMB Medical Report, which clearly stated that the Petitioner
was medically fit under PH category with 55% disability due to
impairment of both legs, the same was in accordance with the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short “ RPwD
Act ”). It is further submitted that on the basis of the said
medical report, it cannot be presumed that the Petitioner has
cleared the benchmark disability, which is required to meet
physical requirements and functional classifications consistent
with the requirement of the post as mentioned.
31.
Ld. Counsel for the Respondents would submit that it is
not in dispute that as per the Medical Report issued by the
Respondent No.4- CSMB, which affirms the Petitioner’s
classification BL (Both Legs) with disability, this classification
was consistent with medical findings and it is unequivocally
established that the Petitioner’s condition falls under the
category that does not meet the functional requirement for the
13
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:55:44
WP-2665-2025 (C)-JF.doc
post of Geophysicist.
32.
It is further submitted that the Respondent No.2-
th
Ministry of Mines vide its communication dated 30 August
2023, rightly informed the Petitioner that his candidature
could not be considered for appointment to the post of
Geophysicist due to non-fulfillment of the essentially
functional classification criteria.
33.
Ld. Counsel for the Respondents would therefore submit
that the Tribunal has not erred in law and in view of the
admitted situation, there is no infirmity or illegality in the
Impugned Order, which warrants any interference in the writ
jurisdiction.
D. DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS :-
34.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the
record. In the instant matter, what we find is that the
Petitioner was finally recommended person with disability
(PwD) candidate of CGSE-2022. However, eventually his
candidature was rejected by the Respondent No. 2-Ministry of
th
Mines vide communication date 30 August 20243 for the
reason that he has been found medically unfit due to non-
14
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:55:44
WP-2665-2025 (C)-JF.doc
fulfillment of functional requirement of the post.
35.
The Respondent No. 1-UPSC was entrusted to conduct
various examinations for appointment to the services of the
Union. As the instant matter relates to CGSE, 2022 for various
posts in the Geological Survey of India, (Ministry of Mines), in
category-I (Posts, which relates to post in the Geological
Survey of India, Ministry of Mines) consisted of (i) Geological,
Group-A (ii) Geophysicist, Group-A (iii) Chemist, Group-A.
36.
It is an admitted position that in the said examination,
the Petitioner had cleared (a) Stage-I i.e. Combined Geo-
Scientist (Preliminary) Examination (b) Stage-II i.e. Combined
Geo-Scientist (Main) Examination and (c) Stage-III Personality
Test/Interview.
37.
After all three stages of the examination, the final
st
result was declared by the Respondent No.1-UPSC on 31
January, 2023 and accordingly the Respondent No.1 had
recommended the Petitioner for appointment to the post of
Geophysicist, Group A.
38.
Consequently the dossier of the Petitioner was forwarded
st
to the Respondent No. 2 on 21 March, 2023 and as per the
15
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:55:44
WP-2665-2025 (C)-JF.doc
procedure Nodal Ministry (Ministry of Mines) in the instant
matter arranges the medical examination of the recommended
candidates after they receive dossiers/report of the
recommended candidates from the Respondent No.1-UPSC. At
the said stage, the medical examination with the Respondent
No.4-CSMB, Safdarjung, New Delhi in its Medical Report has
recorded the Petitioner Fit under PH category with 55%
disability in both legs.
39.
Subsequently, Respondent No.2- Ministry of Mines vide
th
letter dated 30 August, 2023 informed the Petitioner that his
candidature was not considered for the appointment of the
post of Geophysicist in the Geological Survey of India through
CGSE-2022 due to non-fulfillment of the functional
requirement for the said post. The functional requirement that
disability should be of one leg, however, the Petitioner’s
disability as per the finding of the CSMB was both legs (55%)
and accordingly, his candidature was not considered.
40.
For ready reference, in order to appreciate the issue in
hand, we take note of the Rules of CGSE Examination-2022,
which has specified functional classifications and physical
16
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:55:44
WP-2665-2025 (C)-JF.doc
requirements for persons with benchmark disability for the
post of Geophysicist as per details given below :-
Sl. Functional Classification Physical Requirement
No.
1. HH S, ST, BN, MF, SE, W,
KC, C
2. OA, OL S, ST, BN, MF, SE, W,
KC, C
Note: HH-Hard Hearing, H-Hearing, SP-Speaking, S-Sitting,
ST-Standing, W-Walking, MF-Manipulation by fingers, RW-
Reading & Writing, SE-Seeing, OA-One Arm Affected, OL-
One Leg Affected , OLA-One Leg One Arm Affected, N-
Numerical Calculation Ability, BL-Both Legs Affected, BN-
Bending, KC-Kneeling, C-Communication.”
41.
In matters such as the present, we are obligated to
follow the report/opinion of experts like the CSMB/Medical
th
Board in this case. In the said Report dated 29 April 2023,
the Respondent No.4-CSMB in Note-I records that the
Petitioner is Fit under PH-Category having disability in both
legs at 55%. In view thereof, even in the findings recorded by
the Respondent No.4 for the present proceedings finds the
Petitioner Fit but classifies him under PH category (BL 55%).
This aspect requires clarification from the perspective of the
functional requirements in the given post qua the Petitioner’s
condition as per the prevalent norms, Rules and Regulations.
Such findings in the Medical Report would constitute an expert
17
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:55:44
WP-2665-2025 (C)-JF.doc
opinion which cannot be substituted for the views/opinion of
the Court.
42.
In the above backdrop, we have carefully perused
the Impugned Order of the Tribunal. In our considered view
the same is cryptic, there is no finding much less reasoning
recorded on the aspect of the conclusion reached by the
Respondent No.4-CSMB in the present proceedings where
there is appears to be contradiction as narrated above. What is
quint essential in such cases a specific finding by an
expert/medical board as to whether the candidate/person
concerned is Fit for the present post qua the functional
requirements of the such post. In the present case, it is that of
Geophysicist Group -A. There is no specific finding returned by
the Tribunal on this crucial aspect of the matter, given that
otherwise the Petitioner had cleared three stages of
examination, after which he was recommended by the
Respondent No.1-UPSC to the said post.
43.
In our considered view, is in the interest of substantial
justice, to have a finding returned by the Medical Board which
is an expert in the field to certify whether the Petitioner who
18
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:55:44
WP-2665-2025 (C)-JF.doc
otherwise Fit having disability of 55% in both legs, though
remarked as Fit, is both able and capable, in terms of fitness,
to carry out the functional requirements and expectations from
such post.
44.
We do not find any such finding and/or reasoning
recorded in the Impugned Order of the Tribunal. In this
context, the Petitioner was before this Court, prima facie , in
our brief interaction with him and his gait, walk, we also found
him otherwise Fit. However, our opinion is not sufficient in
matters like these. There has to be a proper medical/scientific
report certifying as to whether the person concerned is
functionally able to carry out the responsibilities and duties as
the post/job would demand.
45.
In this background, the Supreme Court in series of
judgments has highlighted the concept of “Reasonable
Accommodation” being a concept enshrined in RPwD Act,
which emanates from Article 41 of the Constitution of India
read with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme
Court in Sujata Bora (Supra) while referring to its decision in
Omkar Ramchandra Gond (Supra) has considered that to
19
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:55:44
WP-2665-2025 (C)-JF.doc
ensure full and effective participation of the persons with
disabilities in the society, the concept of ‘reasonable
accommodation’ must be interpreted broadly.
46.
In Omkar Ramchandra Gond (Supra) , the Supreme
Court observed as under :-
“40. …Section 2(y) of the RPwD Act, defines
“reasonable accommodation” to mean necessary
and appropriate modification and adjustments,
without imposing a disproportionate or undue
burden in a particular case, to ensure to persons
with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise of rights
equally with others. The concept of reasonable
accommodation would encompass within itself the
deployment of a purposive and meaningful
construction of the NMC Regulations of 13.05.2019
read with the Appendix H-1 guidelines in a manner
as to further the objectives of the RPwD Act. The
reasonable accommodation as defined in Section
2(y) of the RPwD Act should not be understood
narrowly to mean only the provision of assisting
devices and other tangible substances which will
aid persons with disabilities. If the mandate of
the law is to ensure a full and effective
participation of persons with disabilities in the
society and if the whole idea was to exclude
conditions that prevent their full and effective
participation as equal members of society, a
broad interpretation of the concept of
reasonable accommodation which will further
the objective of the RPwD Act and Article 41 of
the Directive Principles of State Policy is
mandated.”
(Emphasis
supplied)
47.
The Supreme Court in Omkar Ramchandra
Gond (supra) , has also reiterated that the flexibility in
answering individual needs and requirements is an essential
20
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:55:44
WP-2665-2025 (C)-JF.doc
component of reasonable accommodation. In Anmol Vs. Union
4
of India , the Supreme Court has also considered that the
principle of reasonable accommodation is not only statutorily
prescribed but also rooted in the fundamental rights
guaranteed to persons with disabilities under Part III of the
Constitution of India and as such, the reasonable
accommodation is a fundamental right.
48.
It is imperative in the given factual complexion for the
Tribunal to have also considered the above decisions entailing
the principle of Reasonable Accommodation and its
applicability to the given fact situation.
49.
In the given facts, it is therefore necessary to ascertain
whether the Petitioner can actually perform the job mandated
of a Geophysicist, when the Respondent No.4-CSMB has
classified him Fit under PH category with disability in both
legs to the extent of 55%. Under these circumstances, a
thorough and overall medical evaluation, qua the fitness of the
Petitioner in the post concerned, will be of prime importance.
50.
We find it pertinent to mention that the Ld. Counsel for
the Petitioner relied upon another case of one Ms. Heena
4
2025 SCC OnLine SC 387.
21
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:55:44
WP-2665-2025 (C)-JF.doc
Parveen seeking parity with the Petitioner, in similar situation
to this, the Respondent No. 2- Ministry of Mines in its
rd
speaking order dated 3 April 2024 has clarified that there is a
departmental inquiry pending against this individual, even
though she has joined the services/post. On this account, no
equities can be claimed by the Petitioner, in the given facts and
circumstances.
51.
For all the above reasons, in our considered view, the
Impugned Order deserves to be set aside and the matter is
remanded back to the Respondent No.4-CSMB.
52.
In light of the above discussion we partly allow the
Petition by passing the following order, which in our view, in
the given facts and circumstances, would meet the ends of
justice :-
st
i) The Impugned Order of the Tribunal dated 1
October 2024 is set aside.
ii) The matter is remanded to the Respondent No. 4 –
Chairperson of CSMB, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi.
iii) The Medical Board as reconstituted by Respondent
No.4 shall re-examine the Petitioner, de novo, and assess
22
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:55:44
WP-2665-2025 (C)-JF.doc
him functionally, considering his disability and in this
regard whether he would be fit to discharge his
duties/functions as a Geophysicist.
iv) The Petitioner shall make himself available before
the said Medical Board after being called by them, which
is expected to be done within a period of one week from
the date of communication of a certified copy of this order
by the Petitioner before the said Medical Board.
v) The Medical Board shall, after examination of the
Petitioner, issue a detailed Medical Report on the above
basis clearly indicating whether the Petitioner satisfies
the functional requirements to work as a Geophysicist,
given his medical condition.
vi) Such report shall be issued expeditiously, not later
than, within a period of four weeks from the date of
physical examination of the Petitioner by the Medical
Board.
vii) In the event, the findings of the Medical Board are in
favour of the Petitioner, the concerned Respondent Nos.1,
2 and 3 are directed to consider the same favourably and
act upon it in accordance with law, expeditiously, without
23
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:55:44
WP-2665-2025 (C)-JF.doc
delay.
viii) The Petitioner is at liberty to assail the decision of
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, inter alia, based on the findings
of the said Medical Board, in accordance with law, if the
findings go against the Petitioner.
th
ix) It is clarified that the interim order dated 24
September 2025 passed by this Court reserving one post
for the Petitioner shall continue to operate until the
Medical Report/decision of the Medical Board and for a
period of three weeks thereafter, in the peculiar factual
complexion of the given case and in the interest of justice.
53.
We clarify that the observations made herein are confined
to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
54.
With the above observations/directions the Writ Petition
stands Disposed Of.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]
24
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:55:44
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)