ANMOL JAIN vs STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION (SSC)
- Court
- Central Administrative Tribunal
1 OA No.4035/2023
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No.4035/2023
Order reserved on: 29.09.2026
Order pronounced on: 27.10.2026
Hon’ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Hon’ble Sh. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)
Anmol Jain
Aged about 22 years,
S/o Sh. Atul Kumar Jain
R/o A-90, Shivalik Colony, Malviya Nagar, South District,
New Delhi-110017
Post: Accountant in CAG- PWBD-SLD
Group- C
....Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Rahul Bajaj, Mr. Amritesh Mishra,
Mr. Naman Jain)
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission (SSC)
Through its Chairman (Headquarter)
Government of India
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New De1hi-110003
Email: [email protected]
2. Deputy Accountant General/Admn.
Through its Appointing Authority
O/o the Accountant General (A&E)- I
Uttar Pradesh, Prayagraj
Email: agaeuttarpradesh1 @cag.gov.in
3. O/o The Comptroller & Auditor General
of India (CAG)
Through its Comptroller & Auditor General
of India (CAG)
Pocket-9, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg,
New Delhi-110124
Email: [email protected] .in
SUNITA 2026.11.02
11:33:23+05'30'
DUTT
2 OA No.4035/2023
4. O/o The Assistant Comptroller & Auditor General
of India (CAG)
Through its Assistant Comptroller & Auditor General
of India (CAG)
Pocket-9, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg,
New Delhi-110124
Email: [email protected]
5. Department of Empowerment of Persons with
Disabilities
Through its Secretary
5th Floor Antyodaya Bhawan, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003
Email: [email protected]
6. Union of India
Through its Secretary
Govt. of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance & Pension,
Department of Personnel & Training,
North Block, New Delhi-110001
Email: [email protected]
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Gyanendra Singh, Mr. R.S.Rana,
Mr. Arun Sanwal)
ORDER
By Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
The instant Original Application has been filed by the
applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals
Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
“(i) Set aside the impugned letter dated 23.11.2023, issued
by the respondent No. 2, whereby the applicant has been
offered appointment on the post of Accountant in Office of
the Accountant General (A&E)-1 and Principal Accountant
General (A&E)-II, UP Prayagraj & Lucknow;
(ii) Set aside the impugned Notice dated Nil, issued by the
respondent No.3, whereby the applicant was allotted the
post of Accountant in the Office of the Accountant General
(A&E)-1 and Principal Accountant General (A&E)-II, UP
Prayagraj & Lucknow;
SUNITA 2026.11.02
11:33:23+05'30'
DUTT
3 OA No.4035/2023
(iii) Direct the respondents to allocate an appropriate post
within the State of Delhi and at the nearest place to the
applicant's residence in terms of Section 20 (2) of the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016;
(iv) allow the present Application with costs m favour of
the applicant; and
(v) issue any other appropriate order or direction as this
Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of
justice and in the favour of the applicant.”
2. Factual Matrix
2.1 Vide Advertisement dated 17.09.2022, the Respondent
No.1, i.e. The Staff Selection Commission (SSC) invited
applications for conducting Combined Graduate Level
Examination, 2022 (CGLE-2022) for filling up various
vacancies pertaining to Group-B & C posts in various
Departments and Ministries of Government of India. The
present applicant applied for the same recruitment process
under the PwD (PH), UR category. The applicant was
successful in the said selection process. Prior to declaration of
the results, SSC obtained the preference of candidates for
various posts, and the present applicant submitted his
preferences for posts. Vide Notice dated 31.05.2023, the SSC
declared the allocation of States/Offices to candidates
selected for various posts. The applicant was short-listed for
the post of Accountant in IA&AD (Offices under CAG).
Respondent No.2 issued notice to all shortlisted candidates to
upload their bio-data and state preference. In the said notice,
the vacancies of Accountants available in various states were
SUNITA 2026.11.02
11:33:23+05'30'
DUTT
4 OA No.4035/2023
also mentioned. It is claimed by the applicant that he wanted
to be posted at Delhi, but there was no vacancy shown for
Delhi. Initially, the applicant did not fill up the State
preference. Instead, he made a representation dated
13.06.2023. However, in response to another Notice
(Annexure-A22) the present applicant filled up his state
preference on 15.06.2023 (Annexure-A 24). Applicant had
given preference for (i) Haryana, (ii) Uttar Pradesh, (iii)
Rajasthan and (iv) Punjab. Respondent No.3 allotted the post
of Accountant in the office of Account General (A&E)-I and
Principal Accountant General (A&E) -II, UP Prayagraj and
Lucknow. The applicant was given time to join by 22.12.2023.
2.2 The applicant submitted a representation dated
30.11.2023, followed by reminder dated 04.12.2023.,
requesting the respondents to post him in Delhi considering
the fact that he is a PwD (PH) having low vision problem. He
further served a legal notice to the respondent on 06.12.2023.
The respondents did not respond to his representation and
legal notice. Being aggrieved he has filed the present OA
seeking afore mentioned relief.
3. Pursuant to the notices issued by the Tribunal, the
respondents entered appearance and filed their reply. The
applicant also filed his rejoinder. The learned counsel for the
SUNITA 2026.11.02
11:33:23+05'30'
DUTT
5 OA No.4035/2023
parties were also allowed to file their respective written
submissions, which were taken on record.
4. Submissions by learned counsel for the applicant
4.1 The following is the summary of the oral as well as
written submissions by the learned counsel for the applicant,
which were based on his pleadings in the OA.
4.2 The applicant in his pleadings (Paragraph 5) and the
learned counsel for the applicant in his oral as well as written
submission has highlighted the statutory provisions
contained under Section 20(2) of Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016. It is contended that Section 20(2) of
the said Act provides that every Government Establishment
shall provide reasonable accommodation and barrier free
access and conducive environment to employees with
disability. It is further contended that the DOP&T OM dated
08.10.2018 has clearly laid down that persons with
disabilities must be posted nearer to his place of residence.
4.3 It is contended that as the applicant is presently
residing at Delhi, he should have been posted at Delhi.
Offering him a post at Prayagraj, UP is violative of the
statutory provisions contained in aforementioned PwD Act as
well as the guidelines issued by DOP&T. The applicant will
not be in a position to manage alone at Prayagraj because of
inherent handicap. Because the applicant’s nature of
SUNITA 2026.11.02
11:33:23+05'30'
DUTT
6 OA No.4035/2023
disability compels him to be assisted in successful
performance of basic functions of day-to-day life, posting the
applicant away from native place shall augment the
difficulties and challenges faced by the applicant. It is
contended that the competent authority amongst the
respondents may create a suitable post at Delhi to
accommodate the present applicant.
4.4 In support of the aforementioned averments, the learned
counsel for the applicant has cited the judgment of the Apex
Court in Net Ram Yadav v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. , 2022
SCC Online SC 1022. He referred to Paragraphs 5, 6 & 31 of
the said judgment which are extracted as below:
“ 5. By an Office Order being Sl. No. Nishia/Ganga/
th
Sanstha; 1/93-94/1071 dated 10 August 1993 issued by
the Office of the District Education Officer (Students
Associations) Sriganganagar, the Appellant was appointed
Senior Teacher of the Government Secondary School,
Deeplana, in Hanumangarh, District Bikaner.
6. From the aforesaid Government orders, it is patently
clear that the Appellant was appointed in the category of
handicapped candidates. Deeplana, where the Appellant
was posted is located at a distance of about 550 kms away
from Behror, the place of residence of the Appellant in
Alwar District.
xxx xxx xxx
31. One of the hindrances/disadvantages faced by the
physically disabled persons is the inability to move freely
and easily. In consideration of the obstacles encountered
by persons with disabilities, the State has issued the said
notification/circular dated 20th July 2000 for posting
disabled persons to places of their choice, to the extent
feasible. The object of this benefit to the physically
disabled is to, inter alia, enable the physically disabled to
be posted at a place where assistance may readily be
available. The distance from the residence may be a
relevant consideration to avoid commuting long distances.
The benefit which has been given to the disabled through
SUNITA 2026.11.02
11:33:23+05'30'
DUTT
7 OA No.4035/2023
the Circular/Government Order cannot be taken away by
subjecting the exercise of the right to avail of the benefit
on such terms and conditions, as would render the benefit
otiose.
32. Since there is no challenge in the Writ Petition to the
vires of the Explanation, we do not deem it necessary to
interfere with the same in this appeal. We hold that the
said Explanation can have no manner of application to
handicapped candidates who seek transfer to a place near
their ordinary residence in terms of a beneficial Office
Order/Circular issued for their benefit.
33. With the greatest of respect, both the Single Bench as
also the Division Bench of the High Court have overlooked
the scope and ambit of the Explanation which has no
application in the State to seniority. In our view, the High
Court should have been more sensitive and empathetic to
the plight of a physically disabled. The High Court erred in
law in overlooking the difference between physically
disabled persons impaired in their movement and normal
able-bodied persons. The High Court failed to appreciate
that treatment of unequals as equals ignoring their special
needs violates Article 14 of the Constitution.”
4.5 Referring to aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, the
learned counsel for the applicant states that, the respondents
should have posted the present applicant at Delhi or nearby
places, though it is a fresh appointment.
4.6 The learned counsel for the applicant has further cited
the judgment of Delhi High Court in Anju Mehra v. Canara
Bank, 2020 SCC Online Del 3858. In the said case, the
petitioner, who was initially appointed in 1989 was
transferred to a far-off place from his existing place of posting
in the year 2019. Considering the mandate of Disability Act
(Paragraph 18 of the judgment), the Court granted relief to
the petitioner and the transfer order was quashed (Paragraph
21).
SUNITA 2026.11.02
11:33:23+05'30'
DUTT
8 OA No.4035/2023
4.7 The learned counsel for the applicant further cited the
judgment of the Delhi High Court in IRCON Infrastructure
V. Bhavneet Singh in LPA no. 133/2024 and CM No.
9793/2024 decided 18.07.2024. He referred to Paragraph
44.1 which is extracted below:
“44.1 Therefore, notwithstanding any provision in the
employment contract concerning transfer, it will stand
superseded and/or be subordinate to the provisions of the
2016 Act and the 2017 Rules in the event it is bedeviled
with inconsistency. Thus, the argument advanced by Mr
Bhadra that the impugned transfer order passed by IRCON
IL should be dealt with by ascribing to the same legal
standard applicable to a non-disabled person is a
submission that we are unable to accept.”
4.8 The Hon’ble High Court has reemphasized the statutory
provisions of the PwD Act, 2016 and the Rules thereof 2017
as regards to transfer of employees belonging to PwD
category.
4.9 The learned counsel for the applicant has further
referred to the judgment of the Apex court in Vikash Kumar
V. UPSC and Ors. , (2021) 5 SCC 370. He refers to Paragraphs
63 and 65 which are extracted here:
“63. In the specific context of disability, the principle of
reasonable accommodation postulates that the conditions
which exclude the disabled from full and effective
participation as equal members of society have to give
way to an accommodative society which accepts
difference, respects their needs and facilitates the
creation of an environment in which the societal barriers
to disability are progressively answered. Accommodation
implies a positive obligation to create conditions
conducive to the growth and fulfilment of the disabled in
every aspect of their existence – whether as students,
members of the workplace, participants in governance or,
on a personal plane, in realizing the fulfilling privacies of
SUNITA 2026.11.02
11:33:23+05'30'
DUTT
9 OA No.4035/2023
family life. The accommodation which the law mandates
is ‘reasonable’ because it has to be tailored to the
requirements of each condition of disability. The
expectations which every disabled person has are unique
to the nature of the disability and the character of the
impediments which are encountered as its consequence.
xxx xxx xxx
65. Failure to meet the individual needs of every
disabled person will breach the norm of reasonable
accommodation. Flexibility in answering individual needs
and requirements is essential to reasonable
accommodation. Flexibility in answering individual needs
and requirements is essential to reasonable
accommodation. The principle contains an aspiration to
meet the needs of the class of persons facing a particular
disability. Going beyond the needs of the class, the
specific requirement of individuals who belong to the
class must also be accommodated. The principle of
reasonable accommodation must also account for the fact
that disability based discrimination is intersectional in
nature. The intersectional features arise in particular
contexts due to the presence of multiple disabilities and
multiple consequences arising from disability. Disability
therefore cannot be truly understood by regarding it as
unidimensional. Reasonable accommodation requires the
policy makers to comprehend disability in all its
dimensions and to design measures which are
proportionate to needs, inclusive in their reach and
respecting of differences and aspirations. Reasonable
accommodation cannot be construed in a way that denies
to each disabled person the customization she seeks.
Even if she is in a class of her own, her needs must be
met. While assessing the reasonableness of an
accommodation, regard must also be had to the benefit
that the accommodation can have, not just for the
disabled person concerned, but also for other disabled
people similarly placed in future.”
4.10 In the said case, the petitioner, who is suffering from
writer’s cramp asked UPSC to allow a writer for him. UPSC,
however, did not accede to his request stating that only blind
candidates were allowed writers. The applicant approached
the Administrative Tribunal and the Hon’ble High Court, but
the Supreme Court granted him the relief.
SUNITA 2026.11.02
11:33:23+05'30'
DUTT
10 OA No.4035/2023
4.11 Again, the learned counsel for the applicant reiterates
that the respondents should have accommodated the present
applicant considering his disability.
4.12 The learned counsel for the applicant also referred to
the Apex Court judgment in Ravindra Kumar Dhariwal and
Anr. V. Union of India and Ors , (2023) 2 SCC 209 wherein
the appellant who was Assistant Commandant serving in
CRPF was suffering from mental illness (Obsessive
Compulsive Disorder-OCD). He was declared permanently
disabled to the extent of 40-70% disability. The Apex Court
granted him special relief considering his mental state
(disability). Learned counsel for the applicant referred to
paragraph 141 of the said judgment which is extracted below:
“141. In light of Section 20(4) and the general guarantee
of reasonable accommodation that accrues to persons
with disabilities, the appellant is entitled to be reassigned
to a suitable post having the same pay scale and benefits.
The CRPF may choose to assign him a post taking into
consideration his current mental health condition. The
suitability of the post is to examined based on an
individualised assessment of the reasonable
accommodation that the appellant needs. The authorities
can ensure that the post to which the appellant is
accommodated does not entail handling or control over
firearms or equipment which can pose a danger to
himself or to others in or around the workplace.”
4.13 Finally, the learned counsel for the applicant referred
to the judgment of the Apex Court in Sudhanshu Kardam V.
CA&G India & Others , diary No.43728/2025 decided on
12.3.2026, wherein a mentally disabled candidate was given
the relief for fresh appointment. Earlier the respondents have
SUNITA 2026.11.02
11:33:23+05'30'
DUTT
11 OA No.4035/2023
rejected his candidature stating that the petitioner was not
eligible for the post of Auditor because of disability. The Apex
Court not only granted relief, but also directed the
respondents to create a supernumerary post, if required.
Relying on the said judgment, the learned counsel for the
applicant states that even if there is no post of Accountant at
Delhi, the Respondents may adjust him at Delhi by creating a
supernumerary post.
5. Submissions by learned counsel for the Respondents
5.1 The learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 states that
the SSC (Respondent No. 1) has discharged its
responsibilities. It has accepted the candidature of the
applicant, given him the benefit of being a PwD candidate,
and shortlisted him for the Post of Accountant in the Office of
Accountant General (A&E)-I and Principal Accountant
General (A&E-II, U.P. Prayagraj and Lucknow. Hence, they
have no role in respect of the relief sought by the applicant.
5.2 The learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4
relied on the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. He
further submitted his written submission which was taken on
Record. Based on his Oral submission, as well as the written
submissions, the following are the relevant extracts of his
submissions.
SUNITA 2026.11.02
11:33:23+05'30'
DUTT
12 OA No.4035/2023
5.2.1 The submissions of the Respondents may be
summarised under the following heads, each of which is
developed hereafter:
(i) No post exists . The post of Accountant (Post Code D39)
exists only in the offices of the Principal Accountant
General / Accountant General (Accounts & Entitlement)
[“A&E”] located in the States. No such office exists in
Delhi. The law does not compel the impossible.
The Indian Audit and Accounts Department
discharges two distinct functions through two distinct
sets of offices and two distinct cadres. The Audit offices
(such as the Office of the Principal Accountant General
(Audit), Delhi, at A.G.C.R. Building, I.P. Estate) conduct
audit; their Group ‘C’ ministerial cadre is that of
Auditor. The Accounts & Entitlement (A&E) offices
compile the accounts of a State Government and
administer the entitlements (pension, GPF) of its
employees; their Group ‘C’ cadre is that of Accountant.
The post of Accountant — the post to which the
Applicant was nominated — exists only in A&E offices.
Delhi being a Union Territory whose accounts are not
compiled by the Indian Audit and Accounts Department,
there is no A&E office of the IA&AD at Delhi. This was
pleaded in terms in the counter-affidavit (paras 4.17–
SUNITA 2026.11.02
11:33:23+05'30'
DUTT
13 OA No.4035/2023
4.19 and 4.20). It has never been denied. On the
contrary, the Applicant’s Rejoinder expressly admits it
and merely contends that it is an internal administrative
matter of the CAG and irrelevant.
The Applicant asks this Hon’ble Tribunal to direct the
respondents to allocate an appropriate post within the
State of Delhi. To grant that relief the Respondents
would have to: (a) create an A&E office at Delhi; (b)
sanction cadre strength for it; (c) create a post of
Accountant in it; and (d) fund it. That is not reasonable
accommodation. It is the creation of a public office by
judicial direction.
(ii) The Applicant received, and was not denied, PwBD
preference. Under the approved allocation policy,
persons with disabilities are given preference in State
allocation over other candidates. The Applicant received
his second State preference (Uttar Pradesh). His first
preference (Haryana) had exactly one PH-Others
vacancy, which went to Shri Harsh Yadav (Roll No.
2201006889, Rank 32084), a candidate higher in merit.
That is not discrimination; that is the operation of merit
within the reserved category.
The result of that preference is on the record. Haryana,
the Applicant’s first preference, carried exactly one
SUNITA 2026.11.02
11:33:23+05'30'
DUTT
14 OA No.4035/2023
vacancy under PH-Others. It was allotted to Shri Harsh
Yadav, Roll No. 2201006889, Rank 32084. The
Applicant’s rank is 32963 — 879 places lower. Uttar
Pradesh, his second preference, carried two PH-Others
vacancies, and the Applicant obtained one of them. The
Applicant therefore obtained his second State preference
in a cadre of 1,470 candidates spread over the whole of
India.
(iii) The Applicant’s own preferences produced the result
complained of. The Applicant himself placed Post Code
D39 (Accountant, offices under the C&AG) at Serial No.
3 of his twenty post-preferences, and himself placed
Haryana and Uttar Pradesh at Serials 1 and 2 of his
State preferences. He then accepted, in terms, that once
a post is allotted, no change is made by the Commission
for any reason whatsoever.
The Applicant himself placed D39 – Accountant, offices
under the Comptroller & Auditor General of India at
Serial No. 3 of his twenty post-preferences (Annexure A-
18). He placed D35 (Auditor, offices under the C&AG) at
Serial No. 5, and D40 (Accountant, Controller General of
Accounts) was not among his preferences at all. Under
merit-cum-preference the higher preference attainable at
SUNITA 2026.11.02
11:33:23+05'30'
DUTT
15 OA No.4035/2023
a candidate’s rank is allotted; the Applicant obtained his
third post-preference.
Having done so, the Applicant subscribed on 01.05.2023
to the following declaration (Annexure A-18):
“I also understand that the SSC makes the final
allocation of posts in accordance with merit-cum-
preference of the candidate and once a post is
allotted, no change is made by the Commission
for any reason whatsoever … I understand that
the post/department allocated to me would be
final …”
(iv) The statutory provisions invoked do not apply. Section
20(2) and Section 20(5) of the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016 [“the RPwD Act”] operate upon
employees with disability. The Applicant has never joined the
Indian Audit and Accounts Department and is not its
employee. Rule 8(3)(c) of the RPwD Rules, 2017 governs the
Equal Opportunity Policy of an establishment in relation to
transfer and posting of its employees .
(v) The DoPT Office Memoranda expressly confined to
persons already employed in Government, deals with
exemption from rotational transfer, and is in terms made
subject to administrative constraints. The four Office
Memoranda of 03.07.2024, 30.01.2025, 28.02.2025 and
27.06.2025 are, on their face, letters forwarding a
SUNITA 2026.11.02
11:33:23+05'30'
DUTT
16 OA No.4035/2023
representation for consideration . None of them directs a
posting at Delhi.
(vi) The Applicant is in secure employment in Delhi. By
his own pleading (para 4.3 of the O.A.) the Applicant was
appointed Single Window Operator [SWO(A)] in Punjab
National Bank on 03.07.2023 and is posted at its Malviya
Nagar, Delhi branch — near his residence, with his support
system intact. He is neither unemployed nor displaced.
The Applicant’s alternative formulation (para 9 of his
Note of Arguments) — that he should have been reallocated to
another post as per his preference where he can be stationed
in Delhi — fares no better. Allocation of posts is the exclusive
function of Respondent No. 1 (SSC), not of the answering
Respondents. Further, Annexure A-2 @ page 40 of OA
categorically mentions that the allocation of state/office to a
candidate is final and no request for change of allocation shall
be entertained, there is no challenge to this notification. The
same is mentioned at Annexure A-22 @ page 247 of OA.
Further, the notice of SSC at A-15 Page 214 clearly
mentions that option once given shall be final.
The allocation policy approved by the competent
authority, as set out in the counter-affidavit, provides that:
“Further, while allocating the State to the
nominated candidates for appointment to various
SUNITA 2026.11.02
11:33:23+05'30'
DUTT
17 OA No.4035/2023
Gr. ‘B’ & ‘C’ cadre posts, the Persons with
Disabilities are given preference in allocation of
State over the other candidates. This allocation is
done using an online portal developed for this
purpose by NIC without any manual
intervention.”
The Authorities relied upon by the applicant are
distinguishable and are discussed hereinbelow:
i) Net Ram Yadav v. State of Rajasthan , 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1022
The only question before the Supreme Court was
seniority. The only relief granted was restoration of
seniority (para 34).
Why it does not assist the Applicant.
(a) The appellant there was in service for nine years
before the events complained of. The Applicant here
has never joined.
(b) The appellant there had already obtained the
posting he wanted. His grievance was that a
penalty had been attached to a benefit he had
lawfully availed. Nothing has been taken away from
the Applicant here.
(c) No direction as to place of posting was sought or
granted.
SUNITA 2026.11.02
11:33:23+05'30'
DUTT
18 OA No.4035/2023
ii) Anju Mehra v. Canara Bank , 2020 SCC OnLine Del
3858 : 2020:DHC:3183
What the case was about. The petitioner was a Bank
officer of thirty-one years’ standing (appointed 1989)
with 90% locomotor disability, who had been posted in
Delhi metro branches throughout her career. She
challenged a rotational transfer to a rural branch at
Teela Mod, Farrukh Nagar, U.P. The learned Single
Judge quashed the transfer.
Why it does not assist the Applicant. The reasoning rests
on five planks, none of which exists here:
(a) The petitioner was an existing employee being
uprooted from a settled posting.
(b) The transfer was a rotational transfer, from which
the DoPT O.M. dated 31.03.2014 grants exemption
in terms (paras 6, 17–18). There is no rotational
transfer here
(e) Crucially, in Anju Mehra the Bank had branches in
Delhi — indeed the petitioner had been deputed to
the Patparganj branch. The Court was choosing
between two possible postings. Here there is no
second option to choose.
SUNITA 2026.11.02
11:33:23+05'30'
DUTT
19 OA No.4035/2023
iii) Ircon International Ltd. v. Bhavneet Singh , LPA
133/2024 (Del.) : 2024:DHC:6908 (18.07.2024)
What the case was about. The respondent was an
Assistant Manager (HRM) with 72% locomotor disability
and cerebral palsy, who wore an ankle-foot orthosis
requiring regular maintenance and supervision by a
paramedi c he had consulted for eight years in Delhi. He
had been relocated twice in five years (Delhi → Noida →
Delhi). The impugned order transferred him a third time,
from Delhi to Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Five non-disabled
officers in the same section were available and were not
moved. The Division Bench dismissed the employer’s
appeal.
Why it does not assist the Applicant.
(a) It is, again, a transfer of a serving employee. The
five-factor framework at para 4 of the judgment is
expressly framed for an employer, while passing
transfer and posting orders concerning a
differently-abled person, and speaks of moving
such a person at the time of transfer or promotion.
Factor (iii) is itself qualified by the words subject to
administrative constraints, if any.
SUNITA 2026.11.02
11:33:23+05'30'
DUTT
20 OA No.4035/2023
iv) Vikash Kumar v. UPSC , (2021) 5 SCC 370
What the case was about. The appellant, who suffered
from writer’s cramp (dysgraphia), was denied the facility
of a scribe in the Civil Services Examination on the
ground that a scribe was available only to candidates
with benchmark disabilities. The Supreme Court held
that the concept of benchmark disability under Section
2(r) cannot be conflated with disability under Section
2(s), and that reasonable accommodation is owed to the
latter class as well. The subject-matter was an
examination facility.
Why it does not assist the Applicant.
(a) The case decides nothing whatever about place of
posting, State allocation, or Section 20(5). Section
20 was discussed only as part of the general
architecture of the Act.
(b) The issue in Vikash Kumar was the denial of a
facility to a sub-benchmark candidate. The
Applicant here is a benchmark candidate who has
received the full benefit of the reservation. The
mischief the case addresses is absent.
SUNITA 2026.11.02
11:33:23+05'30'
DUTT
21 OA No.4035/2023
v) Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India , (2021)
15 SCC 1 : (2023) 2 SCC 209
What the case was about. The appellant was a serving
CRPF officer diagnosed with 40–70% mental disability,
against whom disciplinary proceedings were initiated for
conduct that was a manifestation of his disability. The
Supreme Court held that continuing such proceedings
amounted to indirect discrimination, and directed that if
he was found unsuitable for his current duty he be re-
assigned to an alternate post with the same pay and
emoluments under Section 20(4).
Why it does not assist the Applicant .
(a) The case concerns disciplinary proceedings and
discharge, not posting. There is no disciplinary
proceeding here.
(b) The alternate post contemplated there is an
alternate post/duty within the same establishment
and at the same place, so as to preserve
employment. It is not authority for relocating an
establishment.
vi) Sudhanshu Kardam v. Comptroller and Auditor
General of India , 2026 INSC 232 (12.03.2026)
This is the authority on which the Applicant places his
strongest reliance (para 12 of the Note of Arguments),
SUNITA 2026.11.02
11:33:23+05'30'
DUTT
22 OA No.4035/2023
and the answering Respondents therefore deal with it at
some length.
(a) The subject-matter was the suitability of the POST,
not of the PLACE. The controversy arose because
the post of “Auditor” (Post Code D33) in CGLE-
2018 had not been identified under Sections 33/34
of the RPwD Act as suitable for persons with
benchmark disabilities in the categories of mental
illness and specific learning disability. On that
ground the C&AG returned the dossiers of Shri
Amit Yadav and of the appellant to the SSC and
declined to appoint them at all. The entire dispute
turned on the Gazette Notification No. 38-16/2020-
DD-III dated 04.01.2021, which subsequently
identified the Group ‘C’ posts of Assistant (Audit)
and Auditor-II as suitable for those categories. The
words place of posting, native place, residence,
transfer and State allocation do not appear
anywhere in the order. Section 20(2) is not
mentioned. Section 20(5) is not mentioned. No
DoPT Office Memorandum is mentioned.
(b) The relief granted was the opposite of what is
claimed here. The operative directions (paras 21–
22) were: (i) that Respondent No. 2, the SSC,
SUNITA 2026.11.02
11:33:23+05'30'
DUTT
23 OA No.4035/2023
forward the dossiers of the appellant and of Shri
Amit Yadav to the C&AG within two weeks; (ii) that
upon receipt they be considered for appointment
against Group ‘C’ posts identified as suitable; and
(iii) that if the advertised posts stood filled,
supernumerary posts be created. There is no
direction as to where either candidate was to be
posted. The relief was an appointment to a suitable
post , not a posting at a chosen place .
(c) The factual premise of Kardam is absent here. In
that case the C&AG had refused appointment and
returned the dossier. In the present case the C&AG
has done the very opposite: it has accepted the
SSC’s nomination, allocated a State ahead of
general-category candidates, and issued a
provisional offer of appointment dated 23.11.2023
which stands to this day (subject only to this
Hon’ble Tribunal’s interim order). If Kardam
demonstrates anything about the Respondents’
conduct in this case, it demonstrates that they
have been more, and not less, accommodating.
The equities, moreover, are not one-sided. By virtue of
the interim order dated 20.12.2023 a reserved PwBD
vacancy in the Accountant cadre at the O/o the Pr. AG
SUNITA 2026.11.02
11:33:23+05'30'
DUTT
24 OA No.4035/2023
(A&E)-I, Prayagraj, has stood frozen for nearly thirty-
three months. During the same period the Applicant has
been in continuous, secure, pensionable employment in
a nationalised bank in his own neighbourhood in Delhi.
A person with a benchmark disability who might have
filled that vacancy has been kept out of it.
6. Analysis
6.1 The primary relief sought by the applicant refers to the
responsibilities of the respondents to discharge their function
as per statutory provisions contained in the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities Act, 2016. The applicant has specifically
drawn the attention of the Tribunal to the statutory
provisions contained under Section 20(2) of the said Act. For
better appreciation, the said Section is extracted below:
“20. (1) No Government establishment shall discriminate
against any person with disability in any matter relating
to employment:
Provided that the appropriate Government may, having
regard to the type of work carried on in any
establishment, by notification and subject to such
conditions, if any, exempt any establishment from the
provisions of this section.
(2) Every Government establishment shall provide
reasonable accommodation and appropriate barrier free
and conducive environment to employees with disability.
(3) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on
the ground of disability.
(4) No Government establishment shall dispense with or
reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability
during his or her service:
Provided that, if an employee after acquiring disability is
not suitable for the post he was holding, shall be shifted
SUNITA 2026.11.02
11:33:23+05'30'
DUTT
25 OA No.4035/2023
to some other post with the same pay scale and service
benefits:
Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the
employee against any post, he may be kept on a
supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or
he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is
earlier.
(5) The appropriate Government may frame policies for
posting and transfer of employees with disabilities.”
6.2 A bare reading of Section 20(2) shows that it specifically
mentions “employees with disability”, which implies a person
first has to be an employee to invoke the statutory provision
contained under Section 20(2). In the instant case, the
applicant who is yet to become an employee wants to invoke
the underlying statutory provision to get special treatment in
the form of getting “employment linked to a specific station”.
It is different matter that the posting sought by the applicant
at particular location does not exist at all.
6.3 Learned counsel for the Respondents No. 2 to 4,
referring to paragraph 4.20 of the counter affidavits filed by
the said respondents has categorically stated that The Indian
Audit and Accounts Department does not have any
establishment or Office pertaining to Accounts & Entitlement
(A&E) wing of the Department. The post of Accountant to
which the applicant was selected exists only in A&E Offices.
The National Capital Territory of Delhi’s accounts are not
compiled by the Indian Audit & Accounts Department. When
the applicant wants to be posted in Delhi, it amounts to four
SUNITA 2026.11.02
11:33:23+05'30'
DUTT
26 OA No.4035/2023
onerous tasks which comprise (i) creation of an A&E office at
Delhi, (ii) sanctioning various cadres pertaining to accounting
staff, (iii) create/sanction posts and (iv) budget for it. All these
functions are beyond the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, being
part of the policy decision by executive and associated
functions of the legislation (budgeting etc).
6.3 Under such circumstances, it would be appropriate to
delve into case laws which have interpreted or expanded the
scope of the statutory provisions under the said PwD Act,
2016.The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the
applicant, as has been detailed under the contention of the
applicant and the submissions by the learned counsel for the
applicant mostly refer to situations/employees post-
employment or transfers, except one judgment pertaining to
Net Ram Yadav (supra) case. The Anju Mehra (supra) and
the IRCON Infrastructure (supra) cases pertain to transfer of
a serving employee. The Vikash Kumar (supra) case pertains
to the request of the petitioner for allowing a writer as the
petitioner was suffering from writer’s cramp. In Ravindra
Kumar Dhariwal (supra) case, the issue was seniority of a
mentally handicapped employee. In Sudhanshu Kardam
(supra) case, it was the case of ineligibility of PwD candidate
by the recruiting agency stating that petitioner was not
eligible for the post of Auditor because of disability. The Apex
SUNITA 2026.11.02
11:33:23+05'30'
DUTT
27 OA No.4035/2023
Court granted relief and directed the administrative
authorities to create supernumerary post, if the post has
already been filled up. In the instant case, the applicant was
duly selected under the Pwd (UR) category. Hence, this case is
also distinguished as the facts and circumstances in the
instant case are at variance with those obtaining in
Sudhanshu Kardam (supra) case.
6.4 The only case which has initial appointment is Net Ram
Yadav (supra) case. Again, the distinguishing factor in that
case is that there were posts available at the locations sought
by the PwD candidate. As it has been clearly demonstrated by
the learned counsel for the Respondents, in the instant case,
there is no Office of the Accounts & Entitlement Wing of the
Indian Audit & Accounts Department at Delhi. Hence, the
Net Ram Yadav’s case also does not help the applicant.
6.5 The applicant gave four preferences for his posting as
Accountant with the Respondent Organisation i.e. Offices of
the Accounts & Entitlement Wing of the Indian Audit &
Accounts Department. His first preference was Haryana
which could not be accommodated as other candidates having
better merit have been accommodated there. Again, Haryana
is not Delhi for which the applicant has sought relief. The
concerned Respondents have offered the applicant his Second
preference i.e. UP and accordingly offered his posting as
SUNITA 2026.11.02
11:33:23+05'30'
DUTT
28 OA No.4035/2023
accountant in Office of the Accounts & Entitlement Wing of
the Indian Audit & Accounts Department at Prayagraj. In view
of this we do not find any irregularity or illegality committed
by the respondents in this respect.
6.6 As we have analysed, the respondents including
Respondent no.1 have complied with the provisions of the
Rights of Persons with disability Act, 2016, the relief sought
by the applicant invoking the statutory provisions of this Act
is farfetched and not permissible under law. It is different
matter that the applicant is already employed as Single
Window Operator in Punjab National Bank at Delhi.
7. Conclusion
7.1 In view of the above analysis, the present original
application lacks merit and hence is dismissed.
8. No order as to costs.
9. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Rajveer Singh Verma) (Dr. Chhabilendra Roul)
Member (J) Member (A)
‘SD’
SUNITA 2026.11.02
11:33:23+05'30'
DUTT