REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION AND FUNCTIONAL SUITABILITY MUST BE EVALUATED BEFORE DENYING APPOINTMENT TO PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

The applicant, a 39-year-old suffering from a locomotor disability (amputation of left thumb, index, and middle fingers), applied for the post of Craft Instructor (Welder) under the UR–PwD (Multiple Disability/MD) category pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/23.

He was selected and accepted the offer of appointment on 27.11.2024.

However, the respondents issued a "Deficiency Memorandum" on 05.06.2025 and subsequently cancelled his candidature on 29.08.2025.

The respondents contended that the applicant only possessed a certificate for locomotor disability and failed to produce a certificate for "Multiple Disability" as required by the specific vacancy earmarking.

The applicant challenged the cancellation, asserting that he had previously performed the same job on a contractual basis and that the denial was arbitrary and contrary to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.

1. Whether the candidature of the applicant for the post of Craft Instructor–Welder could be rejected solely on the ground that the post was earmarked for PwD–MD (Multiple Disability) while the applicant belonged to the PwD–OH (Orthopedically Handicapped) category.

2. Whether the principle of "reasonable accommodation" and functional assessment must override rigid category-based exclusions under the RPwD Act, 2016.

Sections 2(r), 2(y), 33, and 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which define "benchmark disability," mandate the identification of posts, and establish "reasonable accommodation" as a modification to ensure equal exercise of rights.

Rule 18 of the RPwD Rules, 2017 regarding the issuance of disability certificates in specific forms (Form V vs. Form VI).

The Tribunal relied on Mohamed Ibrahim v. Chairman Managing Director (2023) and Vikash Kumar v. UPSC regarding "reasonable accommodation" and the "social model" of disability.

Principle from Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India (2024), stating that quantified disability per se should not disqualify a candidate if they are functionally capable of pursuing the role.

The Tribunal observed that the respondents adopted a mechanical and restrictive interpretation of the disability categories.

It noted that while "Multiple Disability" involves a combination of two or more specified disabilities, the core of the RPwD Act is the "social model" of disability which focuses on removing barriers rather than adhering to rigid lexicons.

The Tribunal highlighted that the applicant had already successfully performed the duties of a Welder on a contractual basis, which served as empirical evidence of his functional fitness.

Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal reasoned that an employer is under a positive obligation to provide "reasonable accommodation" and that functional assessment by a medical board should determine eligibility rather than a threshold bar based on the nomenclature of the disability certificate.

It held that reservation operates for the establishment as a whole and should not be confined so rigidly as to exclude an otherwise competent benchmark-disabled candidate.

The Tribunal set aside the cancellation order and directed the respondents to: (i) allow the applicant to appear before a Disability Assessment Board at Safdarjung Hospital for a functional re-assessment of his disability relative to the post of Welder; and (ii) if found functionally capable, issue a definitive decision on his appointment within 45 days, with the actual offer of appointment to follow within 30 days thereafter.