Authorities must consider disability-based requests for typing-test exemption under applicable instructions and precedent.

The applicant, a PwBD candidate with congenital amputation and 50% permanent impairment of her left upper limb, cleared Phase I of the Common Recruitment Examination 2024 for clerical and related posts.

Before the skill test, she made representations dated 8 April and 7 May 2025 seeking exemption from the computer typing test; those representations remained undecided when she was required to participate in the test.

The OA sought a general exemption for PwBD candidates from the typing test and partial quashing of the 2024 recruitment rules for omitting such an exemption.

1. Whether AIIMS, New Delhi was required to consider the applicant’s pending request for exemption from the typing test in light of the applicable instructions and the cited Delhi High Court decision.

2. Whether the Tribunal should grant the broader relief sought—general exemption for PwBD candidates and partial quashing of the recruitment rules—on the material before it.

The Tribunal considered the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 28 November 2022, which the applicant relied on as permitting exemption from the typewriting test for persons with disabilities who are medically certified as unable to type.

It also considered AIIMS Jodhpur’s instructions dated 18 July 2019, under which a candidate claiming permanent inability to take the typing test because of physical disability could be exempted, subject to prior approval and a certificate from the competent medical authority.

The Tribunal further relied on the Delhi High Court’s decision in Raju Ranjan v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 9255/2019, which held in its particular factual context that a typing-test requirement should not apply to a candidate with specified upper-limb disabilities and directed consideration of the candidate’s result.

The Tribunal did not hold that these sources automatically exempted the applicant; it directed that her claim be assessed under the applicable instructions and the precedent.

The applicant had raised her disability-based claim before the skill test, but AIIMS had not decided it before requiring her to participate.

Given the cited policy materials and Raju Ranjan, the Tribunal considered that her individual claim required examination by the competent authority rather than being left unresolved.

It also rejected the objection based on non-impleadment of participating institutes as a bar to that consideration, noting that AIIMS, New Delhi was the designated agency conducting the examination and that the applicant had addressed her representation to its Director.

The Tribunal therefore ordered a reasoned decision on the pending representation, without itself determining that the applicant was entitled to exemption or granting the broader challenge to the recruitment rules.

The applicant was to be given an opportunity to submit relevant documents, including medical certificates, and the authority was to issue a reasoned and speaking order.

Any interim order was to continue until the representation was decided; if the claim was accepted, consequential benefits admissible in law would follow on a notional basis.

Pending applications stood disposed of, with no order as to costs.