CAT upholds Railway’s decision to reserve 200 Group-D vacancies for low-vision candidates, excluding 100% blind applicants based on job safety requirements

The applicants, who claimed to be visually impaired persons, challenged Centralised Employment Notification (CEN) No. 09/2025 issued for recruitment to 21,997 Group-D Level-1 vacancies in the Railways.

Although 1% of the vacancies was reserved for persons with visual impairment, the relevant post parameters reserved 200 vacancies only for candidates with Low Vision and excluded persons suffering from complete blindness.

The applicants contended that the post of Assistant—formerly designated Khalasi/Helper—had been identified for both blind and low-vision candidates under the statutory reservation framework and sought quashing or modification of the advertisement, permission to participate, and appointment against the reserved vacancies.

The respondents defended the exclusion on the basis of the functional and safety requirements of Railway posts, the existing identification exercise under the Office Memorandum dated 04.03.2015, and the Railway Board’s letter dated 27.02.2019.

They also submitted that a fresh identification exercise was underway pursuant to the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities communication dated 02.05.2025.

The Tribunal also noted the Delhi High Court’s decision in Nand Lal Luhar v. Western Railway, which had upheld the post-wise exclusion of completely blind candidates from certain Railway posts, and the interim directions of the Supreme Court requiring specified vacancies to be kept vacant.

Whether the respondents’ reservation of vacancies under CEN No. 09/2025 exclusively for candidates with Low Vision, while excluding candidates suffering from complete blindness, violated Sections 33 and 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Whether the post of Assistant/Khalasi/Helper in the concerned Railway departments had been identified as suitable for candidates suffering from complete blindness, so as to require their eligibility and consideration against the reserved vacancies.

Whether the 2021 Gazette Notification and its notes required the respondents to treat the re-designated post of Assistant as identified for both blind and low-vision candidates, notwithstanding the earlier identification exercise and safety-based exclusions.

Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 requires reservation of 1% of vacancies for persons with blindness and low vision, while Section 33 empowers the appropriate Government to identify posts that can be held by respective categories of persons with benchmark disabilities.

The Tribunal applied the principle that reservation is vacancy-based, whereas identification of suitable posts is post-based; identification is necessary before appointment but does not eliminate the obligation to compute and reserve vacancies.

It relied on Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind, (2013) 10 SCC 772, and Ravi Prakash Gupta v. Union of India, for the distinction between reservation and identification.

The Tribunal also relied on the Expert Committee findings incorporated in the Office Memorandum dated 04.03.2015, under which Khalasi/Helper posts involving line operations and train operations were not identified as suitable for visually impaired persons, whereas certain workshop, stores, medical and hospital-attendant posts were identified for both blindness and low vision.

The 04.01.2021 Gazette Notification, including Notes 1, 2 and 5, was held not to automatically nullify the earlier functional-suitability exercise or create an indefeasible right to appointment.

The Tribunal further applied the safety principle in Union of India v. Devendra Kumar Pant, (2009) 14 SCC 546, that disability-protection provisions cannot be implemented in a manner that compromises public safety, co-employees, the employee, or railway equipment.

The Tribunal found that the respondents had not denied the statutory reservation for visual impairment; rather, they had reserved the prescribed 1% vacancies but had identified the relevant Assistant/Khalasi/Helper posts as suitable only for Low Vision candidates, based on the actual duties performed in technical, field, line-operation and train-operation settings.

The earlier Expert Committee had specifically distinguished workshop and stores duties, which could be suitable for blind candidates, from posts involving line and train operations, which carried substantial safety risks and were not suitable for persons with visual impairment.

The Tribunal held that the change in nomenclature from Khalasi/Helper to Assistant did not alter the functional character of the post.

It further held that the 2021 Notification could not be read in isolation to invalidate the existing identification exercise, particularly when the 04.03.2015 Office Memorandum had neither been superseded nor revoked and no material showed that the disputed posts had subsequently been identified as suitable for completely blind candidates.

Consistent with the Delhi High Court’s reasoning in Nand Lal Luhar, the Tribunal balanced inclusivity against the overriding public-interest requirement of railway safety and declined to interfere with the respondents’ technical and functional assessment.

It held that CEN No. 09/2025 lawfully implemented the visual-impairment reservation by earmarking the reserved vacancies for Low Vision candidates against posts identified as suitable for that category.

The applicants were not entitled to a direction declaring the disputed Assistant/Khalasi/Helper posts suitable for persons suffering from complete blindness, nor to participation, reservation or appointment against those posts.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.