Tribunal must reconsider appointment entitlement in light of the AIIMS disability assessment, uninfluenced by its prior decision.

The petitioner applied for appointment as a Geologist in the Geological Survey of India pursuant to a UPSC examination.

The recruitment advertisement reserved two vacancies for persons with “Locomotive disability or Cerebral Palsy etc., OH (OA/OL)”.

The petitioner relied on a disability certificate dated 7 October 2007 certifying 45% permanent locomotor disability arising from genu valgus deformity with right quadriceps weakness.

Although he cleared all stages of selection, he was not appointed after a Medical Board constituted by the respondents assessed him as having 60% disability in both legs and found him not to meet the applicable medical standards.

The High Court noted the discrepancy between the petitioner’s disability certificate and the respondents’ medical assessment and directed an examination by AIIMS.

AIIMS subsequently assessed the petitioner as having 52% permanent physical impairment in the right lower limb, with minimal impairment in the left knee and ankle that did not affect activities.

Whether the petitioner’s disability status and extent of locomotor impairment entitled him to appointment against the reserved post for persons with locomotor disability.

Whether the petitioner’s entitlement to appointment required reconsideration in light of the AIIMS Medical Board’s report dated 16 June 2026.

The Court proceeded on the legal framework governing reservation and eligibility for persons with locomotor disabilities under the applicable disability legislation and recruitment conditions, while noting the reference to the certificate issued under the Persons with Disabilities Act.

Where competing medical assessments create a material dispute regarding the nature and extent of disability, an impartial expert medical assessment may be obtained before determining entitlement.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was expressly analysed or relied upon in the judgment.

The conflicting assessments were material to the petitioner’s eligibility: his earlier certificate recorded 45% locomotor disability, the respondents’ Medical Board assessed 60% disability in both legs, and AIIMS found 52% permanent impairment confined principally to the right lower limb, with only minimal non-functional impairment in the left lower limb.

Rather than making a subjective determination on the basis of the competing medical opinions, the Court considered it appropriate for the Central Administrative Tribunal to reconsider the petitioner’s entitlement in light of the AIIMS report.

The Court expressly left the merits open and directed that the Tribunal decide the matter independently and uninfluenced by the order under challenge.

It disposed of the writ petition by directing the Central Administrative Tribunal to reconsider his entitlement in light of the AIIMS report dated 16 June 2026.

Both parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 31 August 2026, without seeking adjournment on that date, and the Tribunal was requested to hear and decide the matter expeditiously, having regard to the petitioner’s disability status.