CAT Rejects PwBD Recruit’s Delhi Posting Bid: He Had Not Joined, And No CAG Accountant Post Exists There

The applicant, a candidate with a disability, was selected through the Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2022 for the post of Accountant in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department.

In his state preferences, he ranked Haryana first and Uttar Pradesh second; he was allotted Uttar Pradesh and offered appointment in the offices at Prayagraj and Lucknow.

He challenged the allocation, seeking a posting in Delhi under Section 20(2) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (“RPwD Act”), and relied on his low vision and the need for support near his residence.

The respondents stated that the Accountant post exists only in Accounts & Entitlement offices, and that the Indian Audit and Accounts Department has no such office in Delhi.

The applicant was also employed as a Single Window Operator at a Punjab National Bank branch in Delhi.

He sought to set aside the allocation and appointment offer and obtain a suitable Delhi posting.

Section 20(1) of the RPwD Act prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities in employment, while Section 20(2) requires government establishments to provide reasonable accommodation and an appropriate barrier-free, conducive environment to employees with disabilities; Section 20(5) permits the appropriate Government to frame policies for posting and transfer of such employees.

The Tribunal read “employees with disability” in Section 20(2) as requiring the person to have become an employee before invoking that provision for workplace accommodation.

It considered Rule 8(3)(c) of the RPwD Rules, 2017 and the DoPT guidance on posting and transfer, but treated those provisions as relating to existing employees rather than a candidate seeking a particular station upon initial appointment.

The Tribunal distinguished Net Ram Yadav v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1022; Anju Mehra v. Canara Bank, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 3858; Ircon Infrastructure Ltd. v. Bhavneet Singh, LPA 133/2024; Vikash Kumar v. UPSC, (2021) 5 SCC 370; Ravindra Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India, (2023) 2 SCC 209; and Sudhanshu Kardam v. Comptroller and Auditor General of India, 2026 INSC 232, as addressing different circumstances, including transfers of serving employees, examination accommodations, or appointment to a suitable post—not entitlement to a chosen posting where no such post exists.

The Tribunal held that the applicant was not yet an employee of the respondent department and therefore could not invoke Section 20(2) to secure an employment-linked posting at a particular station.

It also accepted the respondents’ uncontroverted position that no relevant Accounts & Entitlement office, and thus no Accountant post, existed in Delhi.

Granting the requested relief would consequently require creation of an office, cadre, post, and funding—matters the Tribunal considered beyond its role and within executive and legislative functions.

The applicant had received his second state preference, Uttar Pradesh, because the Haryana vacancy was allotted to a higher-ranked candidate; the Tribunal found no illegality in that allocation.

It distinguished the cited authorities because they concerned existing employees, different forms of accommodation, or eligibility for appointment, rather than a candidate’s claim to a particular posting location.

It held that Section 20(2) did not entitle him, before joining service, to a Delhi posting, particularly where no relevant post or office existed there, and found no irregularity in his allocation to Uttar Pradesh, his second preference.

The OA was dismissed for lack of merit, with no order as to costs; pending applications were also disposed of.