Independent medical board evaluation must resolve conflicting assessments of a candidate's benchmark disability status.

The applicant, Khushbu, was recommended by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) for the post of Assistant Section Officer (ASO) in the Central Secretariat Service (CSS) under the UR-PwBD (Persons with Benchmark Disabilities) category based on the Combined Graduate Level Examination (CGLE), 2022

She possessed a disability certificate and a UDID card certifying a 51% permanent disability (blindness in the left eye and hearing impairment)

Following a referral by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), a medical reassessment was conducted at Lady Hardinge Medical College (LHMC), which assessed her disability at 38%—below the statutory 40% benchmark

Consequently, the respondents cancelled her candidature via an order dated 02.05.2024

The applicant challenged this cancellation, contending that the reassessment was arbitrary, lacked a statutory basis, and violated the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, especially since her original certificate stated her condition was "not likely to improve"

1. Whether the respondents’ cancellation of the applicant’s candidature, based on a reassessment that conflicted with her permanent disability certificate, was legally sustainable under the RPwD Act, 2016

2. Whether the medical reassessment process, conducted repeatedly at the same institution (LHMC), satisfied the requirements of independence, fairness, and transparency

3. Whether the applicant is entitled to a fresh, independent medical evaluation to determine her eligibility for the reserved post

The court primarily applied the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, specifically Sections 3, 20, 34, 56, 57, and 58, which mandate reservations for benchmark disabilities (minimum 40%) and protect the rights of disabled persons in government employment

It relied on the DEPwD Assessment Guidelines dated 04.01.2018, which provide the formula for assessing multiple disabilities and stipulate that blindness in one eye constitutes a 30% disability

Prabhu Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2026 INSC 253), which held that the state cannot arbitrarily fix disability limits or deny appointments without objective evaluation by expert committees

Sudhanshu Kardam v. CAG (2026 INSC 232) regarding the identification of posts for benchmark disabilities

The Tribunal observed a significant discrepancy between the applicant's initial 51% disability certification and the subsequent LHMC assessments of 38% and 31%

The Tribunal noted the applicant's grievance that the Review Medical Examination (RME) was conducted by the same hospital as the initial reassessment, thus lacking independence

Citing Prabhu Kumar, the Tribunal emphasized that the RPwD Act is beneficial legislation and that any determination regarding a candidate's disability status must be based on objective evaluation rather than the sole discretion of the employer

To resolve the conflict between the permanent disability certificate (which stated no reassessment was recommended) and the respondents' findings, the Tribunal determined that a fair and just conclusion required an independent assessment by a different high-level medical authority (Safdarjung Hospital)

The applicant shall appear before a Disability Assessment Board at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, specialized in relevant disabilities

The Board must determine if the applicant's condition is unlikely to improve and calculate the overall extent of physical impairment

If the applicant meets the statutory parameters under the RPwD Act, 2016, the respondents must take a definitive decision regarding her appointment

The medical exercise must be completed within 45 days, and if found eligible, an offer of appointment must be issued within 30 days thereafter