01Facts
The applicant, who held a certificate recording 40% visual impairment, applied under the PwBD category for the Civil Services Examination, 2025, cleared the examination with All-India Rank 342, and was recommended for further action.
¶ 2Following examination by the Benchmark Disability Expert Panel at AIIMS, her visual impairment was assessed at 10%. She appealed, and the Appellate Disability Medical Board (ADMB) at Army Hospital (R&R) assessed it at 40%.
¶ 2DoPT then directed her to undergo assessment at a third hospital because of the differing opinions; the Tribunal stayed those directions.
¶ 2.3The ADMB report was subsequently placed on record by DoPT.
¶ 402Issues
i.Whether, after the ADMB assessed the applicant’s visual impairment, the respondents could require her to undergo a further assessment at a third hospital.
¶ 6ii.Whether the ADMB’s assessment was final under Rule 5(11) of Appendix III to the Civil Services Examination Rules, 2025.
¶ 703Law Applied
Rule 5(11) of Appendix III to the Civil Services Examination Rules, 2025 provides that a candidate appealing the BDEP report will be referred to the ADMB at Army Hospital (R&R), Delhi, and that the ADMB’s opinion is final, with no appeal lying against it.
¶ 7The Tribunal cited no judicial precedents.
04Reasoning
The Tribunal found that the applicant had followed the prescribed appeal process: after AIIMS assessed her visual impairment at 10%, she was referred to the ADMB, which assessed it at 40%.
¶ 7Because Rule 5(11) makes the ADMB’s opinion final, the respondents could not require another examination merely because the AIIMS and ADMB assessments differed. DoPT was required to proceed on the ADMB report and act on the UPSC recommendation.
¶ 7–805Holding
The Tribunal allowed the O.A. and directed DoPT to treat the ADMB’s findings as final in accordance with the Civil Services Examination Rules, 2025, and to proceed with service allocation under the relevant rules.
¶ 8There was no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of.
¶ 8Original Court PDF
Kunika SinghvsDEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
![CAT Bars Third Disability Assessment for CSE Candidate After Appellate Board Assessed 40% Visual Impairment. Kunika Singh vs DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING. CAT - ['Delhi']. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/cat-bars-third-disability-assessment-for-cse-candidate-after-appellate-board-assessed-40-v-83854addb0d346afa2d23a26ecc7cc3c.webp)