Tribunal orders appointment of visually impaired civil services candidate after authorities wrongly applied 2018 disability guidelines to 2014 exam fitness criteria

The applicant appeared in the Civil Services Examination, 2014 as a visually impaired candidate under the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities category.

Although the applicant was selected by the UPSC, his initial medical examination assessed him at 30% disability, and a subsequent examination assessed him at 20%.

Pursuant to directions of the Orissa High Court in W.P.(C) No. 23373/2020, he was examined by the Guru Nanak Eye Centre Medical Board, which recorded right-eye vision of 6/18 and left-eye vision as PL negative but assessed him at 30% by applying the 2018 disability guidelines.

His candidature was consequently cancelled.

In O.A. No. 654/2022, the Tribunal annulled the cancellation and directed the respondents to obtain a fresh grading of the applicant’s disability with reference to the CSE Examination Notice, 2014, and to appoint him if he satisfied the prescribed condition.

The respondents instead sought the advice of the DGHS, which reiterated that the applicant’s maximum assessed disability was 30% and that he did not meet the 40% benchmark.

His claim was rejected by order dated 19.02.2024.

Whether the applicant’s recorded vision of 6/18 in the better eye and PL negative in the worse eye satisfied the 40% Category I visual-disability criterion prescribed in the CSE Rules and Examination Notice, 2014.

Whether the respondents could assess the applicant’s disability by applying the subsequent 04.01.2018 guidelines instead of the criteria applicable to the 2014 selection process.

Whether the rejection order dated 19.02.2024 validly complied with the Tribunal’s binding directions in O.A. No. 654/2022.

Whether the respondents’ reliance on alleged variable responses or malingering was supported by the medical record and could justify rejection of the applicant’s candidature.

The Tribunal applied the CSE Rules, 2014 and Examination Notice No. 09/2014-CSP dated 31.05.2014, under which vision of 6/18–6/36 in the better eye and 6/60 to nil in the worse eye constituted 40% visual disability under Category I.

It held that recruitment eligibility must ordinarily be determined by the rules and conditions governing the relevant selection process, and that subsequent guidelines cannot retrospectively impair accrued rights or legitimate expectations absent express retrospective language.

The Tribunal relied on P. Mahendran v. State of Karnataka, Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan, Yogesh Kumar v. Government of NCT of Delhi, Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Selvi J. Jayalalitha v. State of Karnataka for the principle that selection must be conducted in accordance with the notified criteria.

It further applied Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the principle that the State must act as a model employer, and the limited grounds for judicial interference with medical-board decisions where the prescribed procedure is breached, the applicable criteria are ignored, or the medical conclusion is materially inconsistent with the record.

The Tribunal found that the GNEC Medical Board had recorded the applicant’s right-eye vision as 6/18 and left-eye vision as PL negative, facts which corresponded to the Category I standard in the 2014 Examination Notice.

The Board nevertheless assigned 30% disability by applying the 2018 guidelines, which were issued after the 2014 selection and were not shown to have retrospective application.

The respondents’ reliance on the DGHS advice did not satisfy the earlier direction because the DGHS failed to answer the specific question—whether the applicant’s recorded vision amounted to 40% disability under the 2014 criteria—and instead repeated that the applicant had been assessed below the benchmark under later standards.

The Tribunal also rejected the allegation of malingering.

The first and third medical assessments were materially consistent, while the second assessment was less favourable to the applicant; therefore, the record did not demonstrate intentional fabrication or exaggeration of symptoms.

Applying the notified recruitment standard, the rule against retrospective application of later guidelines, and the constitutional requirements of equality and equal opportunity, the Tribunal held that the rejection resulted from an unlawful decision-making process and arbitrary application of medical criteria.

The 30% assessment based on the subsequent 2018 guidelines was held legally unsustainable, and the rejection order dated 19.02.2024 was quashed as a nullity.

The respondents were directed to appoint the applicant to the civil service, according to his merit position, notionally from the date on which other candidates selected under the 2014 notification were appointed, subject to fulfilment of all other conditions except the disputed medical criterion.

Compliance was directed within 45 days.

The applicant was entitled to consequential seniority and service benefits, but no monetary benefits for the retrospective period.