A valid disability certificate cannot be overridden by a contrary recruitment medical assessment.

The petitioner applied under the physically handicapped category for the Engineering Services Examination 2017 conducted pursuant to the UPSC Notification dated 28 September 2016. He cleared the preliminary examination, main examination and personality test, but was found medically unsuitable by the Railway Board on 11 October 2017.

On appeal, the Appellate Medical Board diagnosed him with generalised dystonia with myoclonus and dysarthria.

The Railway Board issued a show-cause notice on the ground that this neurological condition was not an identified disability under Annexure I to the Engineering Services Examination Rules, 2017.

The petitioner relied on disability certificates issued by competent medical institutions and contended that his condition constituted a physical/locomotor disability under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

His candidature was cancelled on 12/13 March 2018.

The petitioner’s challenge before the Central Administrative Tribunal was dismissed on 27 September 2024 on the ground that his neurological disorder was not a recognised disability qualifying him for appointment in the civil engineering category.

Before the High Court, he relied, inter alia, on a Unique Disability ID card issued by the Government of India certifying 45% locomotor disability, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment’s definition of locomotor disability, and the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities’ order recognising his locomotor disability.

1. Whether the petitioner’s neurological condition, certified by the competent authorities as a 45% locomotor disability, could be disregarded on the basis of a separate medical assessment by the Railway Board.

2. Whether the petitioner was ineligible for appointment to the Civil Engineering Service merely because generalised dystonia with myoclonus and dysarthria was not expressly identified in Annexure I to the Engineering Services Examination Rules, 2017.

3. Whether the Tribunal erred in upholding the cancellation of the petitioner’s candidature without examining the UDID certification, the applicable definition of locomotor disability, the State Commissioner’s order and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Services.

The Court applied Section 2(zc) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, under which “specified disability” means a disability specified in the statutory Schedule, read with Clause 1(D)1 of the Schedule concerning speech and language disability.

It also relied on the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment’s notification dated 1 June 2001, which defines locomotor disability as inability to execute activities associated with movement, resulting from impairment of the musculoskeletal and/or nervous system.

The Court further relied on the Government-issued UDID card and the State Commissioner’s recognition of the petitioner’s locomotor disability.

Most importantly, following paragraph 51 of Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Services, (2024) 19 SCC 70, the Court held that a person possessing a valid disability certificate cannot be subjected to a further medical examination for the purpose of reaching a conclusion contrary to the disability recorded in that certificate.

The Court found that the petitioner’s UDID card, issued by the Government of India, expressly certified a 45% locomotor disability, while the applicable governmental definition included disabilities resulting from an affliction of the nervous system.

The medical material demonstrated that the petitioner’s neurological condition affected his movement and ability to perform movement-related activities.

This was reinforced by the State Commissioner’s order, which recommended recognition of the petitioner’s locomotor disability and observed that his condition did not materially impair his functional ability.

Applying Om Rathod, the Court held that the Railway Board could not use a subsequent medical assessment to contradict a valid disability certificate.

The Tribunal had failed to consider these materials and had treated the absence of the precise neurological diagnosis from the list of identified disabilities as determinative, without properly examining whether the petitioner’s certified locomotor disability affected his functional suitability for civil engineering service.

It quashed the Tribunal’s order dated 27 September 2024 and the Railway Board’s decision dated 13 March 2018 cancelling the petitioner’s candidature.

The petitioner’s original application was allowed in terms of prayer C, with consequential relief, and the respondents were directed to issue necessary orders in his favour within four weeks.