Mandatory individualized functional assessment and reasonable accommodation for disabled candidates in public employment.

The petitioner, a person with a 40% locomotor disability (Hereditary Sensory Motor Neuropathy), was born, educated, and continuously resided in Puducherry until 2021.

Following his mother’s death during the COVID-19 pandemic, he temporarily moved to a village on the Tamil Nadu border to stay with relatives for support.

After being provisionally selected for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) in the Puducherry Electricity Department, respondents denied him a Nativity Certificate, claiming his temporary absence terminated his "ordinary resident" status.

Furthermore, a Medical Board declared him "not eligible" for the post due to his neurological condition without conducting a functional assessment.

Whether the respondents acted illegally and arbitrarily in denying the issuance of a nativity certificate to the petitioner based on his temporary absence from Puducherry?

Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature on the ground of medical unfitness was perverse, illegal, and arbitrary under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016?

The Court applied G.O.Ms.No.48 dated 12.12.2002, which defines "Nativity by Birth" as requiring a person to be an "ordinarily resident," allowing for temporary absences if there is an intention to return.

Centrally, the Court relied on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, specifically Section 3 (Equality and Non-discrimination).

Section 20 (Non-discrimination in employment).

The principle of "Reasonable Accommodation" under Section 2(y).

It further integrated the doctrine of "Substantive Equality" from *Vikash Kumar v. UPSC* (2021).

The requirement for "Functional Competency" assessments using assistive devices as established in *Omkar Ramachandra Gond v. Union of India* (2024).

Regarding issue one, the Court found the denial of the nativity certificate perverse because the petitioner maintained all legal ties to Puducherry (Voter ID, Aadhaar, Ration Card) and his move was a "compelling" temporary measure due to disability and family tragedy, falling squarely within the exceptions of G.O.Ms.No.48.

Regarding issue two, the Court held the Medical Board's summary rejection was "mechanical" and lacked sensitivity.

The Board failed to consider that the petitioner had already successfully completed a B.Tech (including practicals) and worked four years as an Electrical Supervisor, which served as a de facto functional test.

The Court emphasized that under the 2016 Act, the State has a positive obligation to provide "reasonable accommodation" and must assess whether a candidate can perform duties with assistive tools rather than dismissing them based on a medical label.

The Court ordered: (i) the immediate issuance of the Nativity Certificate.

(ii) the constitution of a fresh Medical Board including a Neurologist and a departmental expert to conduct a functional assessment of the petitioner’s ability to perform the job, giving credence to his past work experience.

(iii) that the petitioner be appointed to the existing vacancy if cleared.

(iv) the payment of Rs. 50,000 in costs to the petitioner.

Additionally, the Chief Secretary was directed to create a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for disability sensitization.