PwD reservation cannot benefit candidates whose specific disability category is not identified for the post.

The applicant, a railway employee with more than 40% locomotor disability in the One Leg (OL) category, was working as Signal Maintainer Grade-I in the pay band of ₹5,200–20,200 with Grade Pay of ₹2,800.

The respondents issued a notification dated 10 February 2021 for six posts of Staff & Welfare Inspector, including one post reserved for persons with disabilities (PwD).

The applicant applied, was permitted to take the written examination held on 28 October 2021, and was declared successful, with his name appearing at Serial No. 17 in the result dated 12 November 2021.

However, his name was excluded from the final panel dated 20 December 2021 because, according to the respondents, the post was identified only for the DW (Dwarf) and AAV (Acid Attack Victim) categories and no eligible candidate from those categories was available; the vacancy was therefore carried forward.

The applicant challenged the exclusion, relying on earlier identification of the post as suitable for the OL category and on RBE No. 62/2017 concerning reservation, carry-forward and interchange of PwD vacancies.

The respondents relied on Railway Board Letter dated 27 February 2019, which identified the post as suitable for DW/AAV categories, and also contended that the applicant had subsequently been promoted to Level-6, rendering him ineligible under the recruitment notification.

Whether the applicant, being a person with locomotor disability in the OL category, was eligible for consideration against the PwD-reserved post of Staff & Welfare Inspector under the notification dated 10 February 2021.

Whether the applicant’s participation in the examination and inclusion in the successful candidates’ result created an enforceable right to inclusion in the final panel.

Whether RBE No. 62/2017 or the earlier identification of the post for the OL category required the respondents to fill the reserved vacancy with the applicant.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 empowered the Tribunal to examine the applicant’s service grievance.

The governing Railway instructions required PwD reservation to operate with reference to the disability categories for which a particular post had been identified as suitable.

Railway Board Letter dated 27 February 2019 identified the post of Staff & Welfare Inspector for the DW and AAV categories, not the OL category.

Mere participation in a selection process or success in an examination does not confer an indefeasible or vested right to appointment or inclusion in the final panel; eligibility must be determined under the applicable recruitment rules.

RBE No. 62/2017, dealing with reservation, carry-forward and inter se exchange of PwD vacancies, does not create a substantive right in favour of a candidate whose particular disability category is not identified as suitable for the post.

The precedents cited by the applicant, including Imtiyaz Ramzan Khan v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 9 SCC 163, and Union of India v. Sanjay Kumar Jain, (2004) 6 SCC 708, were not found to assist his claim on the facts and applicable identification instructions.

The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had been allowed to participate in the selection and had qualified in the written examination, but held that these facts did not override the applicable eligibility requirements.

The decisive consideration was that the applicant belonged to the OL category, whereas the contemporaneous Railway Board identification relied upon by the respondents covered only DW and AAV candidates.

The applicant’s reliance on the 1987 identification of the post for OL candidates was rejected because no subsequent material established that the 2019 identification had been withdrawn or was inapplicable to the selection.

Similarly, RBE No. 62/2017 could regulate the treatment of an unfilled PwD vacancy but could not enlarge the class of disability categories considered suitable for the post or confer an appointment right on the applicant.

Consequently, the exclusion was treated as arising from the non-identification of the applicant’s specific disability category, rather than from impermissible discrimination solely on the ground of disability.

It held that the applicant, being in the OL category, had no enforceable right to consideration against a post identified only for DW/AAV candidates, notwithstanding his participation in the examination and success in the written result.

The Original Application was dismissed as devoid of merit, and the final panel dated 20 December 2021 was not interfered with.

No order as to costs was made.