Identifying a post as suitable for persons with disabilities does not guarantee appointment; relaxed standards need not be lowered indefinitely, Delhi HC holds

The petitioner’s son, Bhagyadeep Ashwinbhai Mehta, a Mechanical Engineer with hearing impairment, participated in two recruitment processes. In IOCL’s GATE-2014 recruitment for Officer/Assistant Officer (Mechanical) under the PwD-HH category, the selection process comprised GATE, GD/GT and personal interview. He obtained a composite score of 31.893, satisfying the individual GD/GT and interview thresholds but falling below IOCL’s 40% composite qualifying standard for PwD candidates. Of two HH vacancies in Mechanical Engineering, one candidate was empanelled and the petitioner contended that the other remained unfilled

The Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities rejected the complaint in 2017, finding no violation of the applicable disability legislation or recruitment instructions. The writ petition was initially disposed of and later remanded in appeal because IOCL and ONGC had not been heard.

During the proceedings, IOCL stated that it had relaxed several standards for PwD candidates in 2014, including the composite benchmark from 45% to 40%, and had subsequently reduced the benchmark to 30% in 2018 as a one-time measure to address accumulated backlog vacancies.

In ONGC’s GATE-2017 recruitment for Assistant Executive Engineer (Mechanical), Bhagyadeep obtained an aggregate of 47.2 marks, including 5/15 in the interview. PwD candidates were required to secure at least 6/15 in the interview, and the PwD-HH cut-off was 48.20. His request for one grace mark was rejected because the applicable recruitment framework contained no provision for grace marks.

1. Whether identification of a post as suitable for persons with a particular disability entitles every otherwise eligible candidate with that disability to appointment, irrespective of the prescribed standard of suitability?

2. Whether Clause 22 of the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 29 December 2005 required IOCL to relax its already reduced 40% composite benchmark merely because a reserved HH vacancy allegedly remained unfilled?

3. Whether Bhagyadeep was entitled to appointment in ONGC despite obtaining less than the prescribed minimum interview marks, including through the award of a grace mark?

4. Whether the use of interviews, GD/GT and similar selection stages, or the carrying forward of unfilled PwD vacancies, was unlawful in the absence of proof that those processes disadvantaged candidates on account of disability?

The Court applied Sections 32, 33 and 36 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, under which identification of posts establishes their suitability for persons with specified disabilities, reservation must be provided in accordance with the statutory framework, and an unfilled reserved vacancy may be carried forward where a suitable PwD candidate is unavailable.

It also considered Sections 20, 33 and 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, including the statutory treatment of unfilled vacancies, but held that those provisions do not confer a right to alteration of marks or appointment despite failure to meet prescribed standards.

Clause 22 of the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 29 December 2005 permits relaxation of suitability standards where sufficient PwD candidates are unavailable on the general standard, but does not require indefinite or repeated lowering of an already relaxed benchmark.

The Court relied on Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind, (2013) 10 SCC 772, for the operation of reservation and the significance of identification; Rajeev Kumar Gupta v. Union of India, (2016) 13 SCC 153, for the distinction between identification of posts and reservation; Akhilesh Kumar v. UGC, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 935, for relaxation as reasonable accommodation; and In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 481, and Taniya Malik v. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi, (2018) 14 SCC 129, for the principle that mere existence of vacancies does not compel relaxation, although an express power of relaxation must be considered.

The Court distinguished between the suitability of a post for a category of disability and the individual suitability of a candidate. Rajeev Kumar Gupta and National Federation of the Blind required reservation to operate in identified posts, but did not eliminate legitimate selection standards or make every eligible candidate automatically appointable.

In IOCL’s case, the employer had already invoked Clause 22 by relaxing the general composite standard from 45% to 40%, along with other qualifying relaxations. Bhagyadeep’s score of 31.893 remained below that applicable standard.

Although the 2018 reduction to 30% demonstrated that further relaxation was administratively possible, it was an expressly one-time, prospective policy measure to address the backlog and could not retrospectively govern the 2014 selection.

Section 36 contemplated carry-forward of a vacancy where no suitable candidate was available; therefore, an unfilled vacancy did not itself require IOCL to lower the benchmark until Bhagyadeep qualified.

In ONGC’s recruitment, Bhagyadeep secured 5/15 in the interview against the PwD minimum of 6/15 and was also below the category cut-off. The applicable rules contained no power to award a grace mark, and neither the 2016 Act nor the non-joining of another candidate authorised alteration of his marks.

Finally, the Court found no evidence that interviews or GD/GT imposed disability-based or post-unrelated barriers; Bhagyadeep’s non-selection resulted from failure to meet applicable qualifying standards.

Bhagyadeep was not entitled to appointment in IOCL on the basis of the 2014 recruitment or in ONGC on the basis of the 2017 recruitment. The Court also declined to award a grace mark, invalidate the interview/GD/GT processes, or issue general policy directions concerning PwD recruitment and carried-forward vacancies. The writ petition was dismissed.