Statutory Right to Reasonable Accommodation Overrides Trivial Clerical Errors in Person with Disability Applications

The applicant, a 100% visually impaired individual currently serving as a TGT (Social Science), applied for the post of PGT (Political Science) under Advertisement No. 07/2023 issued by the DSSSB.

Due to her dependency on a third party at a cyber cafe for digital access, a clerical error was made in the online application form, failing to reflect her PwBD (Persons with Benchmark Disabilities) status, resulting in her being categorized as Unreserved (UR).

Consequently, she was denied the reservation benefit and the assistance of a scribe for the examination scheduled for July 15, 2025.

Despite representations to the respondents, no corrections were permitted, prompting this Original Application.

On July 14, 2025, the Tribunal passed an interim order allowing her to appear with a scribe.

1. Whether a PwD candidate who inadvertently failed to indicate their disability category in an online form can be denied reservation and reasonable accommodation under the RPwD Act, 2016.

2. Whether a trivial clerical error by a 100% visually impaired candidate constitutes a fatal defect warranting the rejection of their candidature.

Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, regarding the mandate for reservation and "reasonable accommodation".

The Supreme Court precedent of Vikash Kumar v. UPSC established that reasonable accommodation is a facet of substantive equality under Articles 14 and 16.

Vashist Narayan Kumar v. State of Bihar, which held that the law does not concern itself with trifles (de minimis non curat lex) and genuine trivial errors should not penalize an applicant.

Ms. Charu Kain v. High Court of Delhi, allowing rectification of bona fide mistakes that do not cause prejudice to others.

The Tribunal observed that there was no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation; rather, the applicant’s 100% blindness was undisputed.

It noted that despite the "UR" categorization, the applicant’s sub-category was recorded as "Visual (VH) (Blind)" and her fee was exempted, proving her disability status was known to the system.

The court reasoned that technology should be an enabler, not a barrier, and the "digital divide" must be considered when errors occur due to third-party assistance at cyber cafes.

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' rigid reliance on "no correction" clauses, asserting that constitutional morality and the mandate of the RPwD Act require a pragmatic and accommodative approach to neutralize structural disadvantages faced by disabled candidates.

The applicant’s candidature must be considered under the PwD category. The respondents were directed to evaluate her based on merit within that category, extend all consequential benefits, and issue an offer of appointment should she qualify the examination.

All pending MAs were disposed of with no costs.