Multiple Sclerosis falling under Specified Disabilities entitles candidates to reservation as persons with benchmark disability.

The Respondent, suffering from multiple sclerosis and low vision, holds a disability certificate issued by the DEPwD certifying a 45% cumulative disability (15% low vision; 30% multiple sclerosis)

She applied for the Combined Graduate Level Examination 2021 under the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) quota. Despite clearing all tiers, her candidature was rejected during document verification on the ground that "Multiple Sclerosis Disease [is] not admissible for reservation"

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) allowed her challenge against this rejection on 12 December 2025

The Petitioner (Union of India/SSC) challenged the CAT order via the present writ petition.

1. Whether multiple sclerosis is a disability that qualifies for the benefit of reservation under Section 34(1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act, 2016.

2. Whether a person whose benchmark disability (40% or more) is derived from a combination of multiple sclerosis and another ailment is entitled to the 4% statutory reservation.

Section 34(1) of the RPWD Act, 2016, which mandates a 4% reservation for "persons with benchmark disability"

"Benchmark disability" is defined under Section 2(r) as a person with not less than 40% of a "specified disability"

A "specified disability" under Section 2(z)(c) refers to those listed in the Schedule to the Act, where Clause 4(a)(i) explicitly includes "multiple sclerosis" as a chronic neurological condition

The inclusive interpretation doctrine established in Vikash Kumar v. UPSC and Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India, mandating that the Act be interpreted to fulfill its remedial philosophy

The Court rejected the Petitioner's argument that multiple sclerosis is excluded from the categories in Section 34(1)(a) to (d). It reasoned that the first part of Section 34(1) creates a broad statutory obligation to reserve seats for all "persons with benchmark disabilities," while the second part [clauses (a) to (e)] merely provides a mechanism for distribution; the latter cannot override or restrict the former

Since multiple sclerosis is explicitly listed as a "specified disability" in the Schedule to the Act, the Respondent—having a certified 45% disability—qualifies as a "person with benchmark disability"

The Court further noted that the SCC’s own advertisement (Annexure XIV) listed multiple sclerosis at S.No. 17 as a qualifying disability, thus estopping the Petitioner from denying its admissibility

The Court affirmed the Tribunal's view that multiple sclerosis, as a neurodevelopmental disorder, could also fall under the umbrella of "mental illness" mentioned in Section 34(1)(d)

The Court affirmed the CAT’s direction to treat the Respondent as eligible for a PwD vacancy, ruling that once a candidate possesses a valid disability certificate above 40% for a scheduled disability, the state cannot narrow the scope of the Act to deny reservation