Mandatory Appointment of PwBD Candidates to Posts Subsequently Identified as Suitable Under the RPwD Act 2016

Respondent No. 3 (Amit Yadav) and the Appellant (Sudhanshu Kardam) applied for the post of ‘Auditor’ in the CAG office through the SSC CGLE-2018 under categories for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD)—specifically ‘Mental Illness’ and ‘Specific Learning Disability’ (SLD).

Although they cleared the examination and were recommended for appointment, the CAG returned their dossiers to the SSC in September 2021, claiming the post of ‘Auditor’ was not identified as suitable for their specific disabilities.

Respondent No. 3 successfully challenged this before the CAT, but the Delhi High Court set aside the CAT’s order on May 29, 2025, restoring the rejection.

The Appellant, whose own challenge was pending before the CAT, moved the Supreme Court.

During proceedings, a 2021 Government Notification was brought to light which updated the list of suitable posts.

Whether the Appellant and Respondent No. 3 could be accommodated for appointment in light of the updated identification of posts suitable for PwBD categories under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016?

The Court primarily applied the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, specifically Section 33 regarding the identification of posts suitable for persons with benchmark disabilities.

It relied on Gazette Notification No. 38-16/2020-DD-III dated 4th January 2021, issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, which superseded previous 2013 lists and expressly identified Group ‘C’ posts (including Auditor) as suitable for persons with ‘mental illness’ and ‘specific learning disabilities’.

The Court noted that while the initial recruitment in 2018 relied on older classifications, the legal landscape shifted with the 2021 Notification.

The CAG (Respondent No. 1) filed an additional affidavit admitting that under the 2021 Notification, the post of Auditor is now identified as suitable for candidates with the Appellant’s and Respondent No. 3’s disabilities.

The CAG expressed willingness to accommodate them provided the SSC (Respondent No. 2) forwarded their dossiers.

The Court reasoned that since the statutory authority (the Ministry) had formally recognized the suitability of these posts for the relevant disability categories, there remained no legal impediment to their appointment.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction to bridge the procedural gap between the SSC and CAG to ensure the remedial purpose of the RPwD Act was fulfilled.

The CAG was directed to consider the Appellant and Respondent No. 3 for appointment to Group ‘C’ posts; if the original vacancies were filled, the respondents must create supernumerary posts to accommodate them.

The appointments are to take effect from the date of joining.

The High Court judgment was effectively modified/supplanted by these directions.