Reasonable accommodation for PwD candidates is a pre-requisite to assessing eligibility under the RPwD Act.

The Petitioner, a person with 75% permanent blindness

applied for a Group D Level 1 post (Assistant) under Advertisement No. RRC–01/2019 issued by the Indian Railways.

She passed the written examination and underwent document verification.

However, via a letter dated August 22, 2024, Respondent No. 2 disqualified her candidature on the ground that her matriculation equivalent—the "Uttama" course from Mumbai Hindi Vidyapeeth—was not recognized by the board as equivalent to SSC.

The Petitioner challenged this rejection, asserting that a State Government Resolution (GR) dated February 28, 2007, recognized the course as equivalent to SSC

and invoked the principle of "reasonable accommodation" under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (RPwD Act), 2016.

The Court primarily applied the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, specifically the definition of "reasonable accommodation" under Section 2(y), which mandates necessary adjustments to ensure persons with disabilities enjoy rights equally with others.

It relied on Vikas Kumar v. UPSC [(2021) 5 SCC 370] and Sujata Bora v. Coal India Limited [2026 SCC OnLine SC 58], which establish that disability rights are a facet of substantive equality under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Regarding jurisdiction, the court followed Shanta Digambar Sonawane v. Union of India [2024 SCC OnLine Bom 662], holding that writ jurisdiction is maintainable when fundamental rights and RPwD Act protections are at stake.

The Court first dismissed the Respondents' preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction, reasoning that requiring a disabled person to approach the CAT for enforcement of fundamental and statutory rights under the RPwD Act would result in a failure of justice.

On the merits, the Court distinguished the Full Bench decision in Dhiraj v. MSRTC, noting that the earlier case did not involve a person with a disability and focused on a different GR.

The Court emphasized that under the RPwD Act, "reasonable accommodation" is a pre-requisite to assessing eligibility.

It held that even if the Respondents' view on the "Uttama" board’s lack of recognition were technically correct, the state has an affirmative duty to provide accommodations to prevent indirect discrimination through rigid procedural barriers.

The Court observed that the Petitioner’s successful completion of the exam demonstrated merit, which must be viewed through a liberal, relief-oriented lens rather than an obstructive one.

The Court quashed the rejection letter dated August 22, 2024.

It directed Respondent No. 2 to consider the Petitioner’s candidature for the post of Assistant within three weeks and ordered that one post be kept vacant for her in the interim.

The Writ Petition was made absolute.