Delhi HC Sets Aside Disability Commissioner’s Order Directing Consideration Of Blind ESIC Employee For Promotion, Finds No Proof Disability Drove DPC Rating

Dalvi joined the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) as an LDC in 1976 and later became visually impaired.

After ESIC reverted him from Assistant to UDC on account of his disability, the Central Administrative Tribunal’s proceedings resulted in his retrospective restoration as Assistant from 24 September 1993.

Dalvi was subsequently considered for promotion to Insurance Inspector/Local Office Manager/Superintendent. DPCs and Review DPCs assessed him as “Below Average” and found him unfit.

On his complaint, the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD) concluded that disability-related preconceptions had affected the assessment and directed ESIC to consider and promote him if otherwise fit.

ESIC challenged that order under Articles 226 and 227.

Section 47(2) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 prohibits denying promotion merely on the ground of disability, but does not confer an unconditional right to promotion or dispense with applicable suitability standards.

Under the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 10 April 1989, a DPC may independently and objectively assess suitability based on the ACRs as a whole and need not be guided only by their overall grading.

Union of India v. S.K. Goel, (2007) 14 SCC 641, supports the principle that courts ordinarily do not interfere with DPC assessments absent illegality, gross violation of rules, or misgrading of confidential reports.

Union of India v. Devendra Kumar Pant, (2009) 14 SCC 546, clarifies that Section 47(2) bars disability itself from operating as a disqualification, while permitting assessment against legitimate requirements of the promotional post.

Judicial review does not permit a court or authority to substitute its assessment of comparative merit for that of a DPC, but may be warranted for mala fides, arbitrariness, non-application of mind, irrelevant considerations, or breach of mandatory requirements.

The Court held that the CCPD erred in treating the lack of adverse ACR remarks as sufficient to displace the DPCs’ independent “Below Average” assessment; the Review DPC minutes showed consideration of work, knowledge and application of rules, case examination, and noting and drafting.

The earlier disability-related reversion was relevant but, having been corrected, did not establish that later DPCs were similarly influenced.

The record identified no specific criterion or material showing that disability operated as the ground for the later assessments.

The claim that assistance had been requested and denied was raised only in a later affidavit, with no supporting material in the complaint or proceedings before the CCPD.

The Court therefore found no basis to disturb the DPC assessments.

It held that the CCPD had wrongly treated the absence of adverse remarks as determinative and had found disability-related influence without identifying supporting material.

The CCPD’s order dated 11 October 2006 was set aside; the DPC and Review DPC assessments remained undisturbed, and ESIC’s petition was allowed.