Vikas Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors.

"a. To set aside the impugned letter bearing No. 4976/SFII/A-12025/(1-Geol.)/2020-Pers.I dated 22.12.2021 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Respondent no. 2;

b. To re-appoint the Applicant (Roll No. 2690288) to the post of Geologist under Category: OBC(PH) and restore back the Offer of Appointment Letter dated 15-12-2021 issued to the Applicant:

c. Direct the Respondents that his appointment should be considered alongwith those candidates who have cleared examination alongside him;

d. To grant all consequential reliefs to the Applicant as per his merit:

e. To pass such further or other order(s) and/or direction(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice."

“7.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions; examined the documents on record and perused the judgments and decisions cited by both sides. We have observed that the applicant was considered FIT under PH Category (60%) both Legs Affected but not arms) as per the recommendation of the Central Standing Medical (Board), Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. However, the 02 vacancies of Geologist were reserved for candidates with locomotor disability stipulated One Arm (OA) affected/ One Leg (OL) affected in the Exam Notice No. 02/2020-Geol dated 25.09.2021 published by UPSC for CGSE, 2020. Thus the applicant did not meet the disability criteria mentioned in the examination Notice and therefore his candidature was rightly rejected by the respondents.

In OA No. 1409/2019 – Manish Kumar vs. Railway Board & Others, we have adjudicated this matter and inter alia pronounced the judgment as follows :-

“24.

Services under his category of civil engineering have been classified with functional requirements of OA, OL and HI and PD only. The disability of the applicant is not classified, therefore, it is not possible for the Tribunal to interfere.

25.

Medical opinion is the job of the experts and respondents have identified the services as per functional requirements. The Tribunal cannot impose its opinion over that of the experts and neither it can interfere with the policy or identify a suitable service for the applicant. It is entirely the choice of the employer.

26.

In such circumstances, the relief claimed cannot be granted. Hence the OA is dismissed.”

In OA No. 669/2023 – Bharath Kumar vs. UOI & Others we have echoed similar sentiments and views and inter alia pronounced the judgment as follows :-

“52.

In the present case respondents had notified the functional classifications attached to the different services in the advertisement itself. The respondents are thus duty bound to follow the rules as notified by them concerning CSE 2019. Issuing a direction to respondents to allocate service to the applicant disregarding the FC would amount to directing the respondents from diverting from their own notified rules.

53.

The Tribunal, while exercising powers of judicial review, cannot usurp function of the executive nor direct the executive to exercise their power in a particular manner. In General, P.U. Joshi and Others Vs. Accountant Ahmedabad and others with Union of India and others vs. Basudeva Dora and Others, it has been held that the question relating to the constitution pattern and nomenclature of post falls in the realm of policy of the executive. The applicant does not have any right to seek a direction which will go beyond the settled policy. 54. In Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club and Another Vs. Chander Hass and Another, Civil Appeal no.5732/2007, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the Judges must exercise judicial restraint and must not encroach into the executive or legislative domain. 55. Similarly in Ranjan Kumar and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, Civil Appeals No.4455-58 of 2009, it has been held that if an applicant does not find himself selected in a recruitment selection process then he cannot turn around and cry foul that the rules by which the selection has been conducted are vitiated. 56. In view of the above and upon consideration in entirety, we do not find any merit in the case. Hence the OA is dismissed.”

8.

We are therefore inclined to follow our above decision in the instant OA also. Hence, the balance of convenience in the instant OA lies with the respondents. The instant OA is devoid of merit; deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. MAs if any are also disposed of in similar manner. However, there will be no order as to costs.”

“1.

On 26 May 2026, we passed the following order: 1. The dispute in this case is essentially restricted to the disability status of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner applied for recruitment as a Geologist in the Geological Survey of India¹, consequent to an exam conducted by the UPSC. 3. Two vacancies were, as per the advertisement dated 25 September 2019, reserved for “Locomotive disability or Cerebral Palsy etc, (OH (OA/OL)² ”.

4.

The petitioner relies on the disability certificate dated 7 October 2007 issued to him by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities which reads thus:

“Certificate No.: UP6620619940010887 Date: 07/10/2007

This is to certify that I/We have carefully examined Shri Vikas Kumar Son of Shri Rajkumar Date of Birth 02/10/1994 Age 23 Year(s) Male, Registration No. 0966/00000/1809/0705612 resident of House No. Vill Amra Khaira Chak, Post Kandwa, Varanasi - 221106 Sub District Varanasi District Varanasi State / UTs Uttar Pradesh Whose photograph is affixed above, and I/We satisfied that:

(A)

He is a case of Locomotor Disability

(B)

The diagnosis in his case is Genu valgus deformity with right quadricep weakness.

(C)

He has 45% (in figure) Forty Five percent (in words) Permanent in relation to his (part of body) as per guidelines (to be specified).

The applicant have been submitted the following document(s) as proof of residence.”

5.

The petitioner cleared all stages of the selection process but was ultimately not selected on the ground that he did not meet the applicable medical standards as he suffered from disability in both legs to the extent of 60%, based on the opinion of the Medical Board which purportedly examined the petitioner.

6.

There is thus, a discrepancy between the degree and nature of disability suffered by the petitioner as recorded in his disability certificate and in the report of the Medical Board conducted by the GSI.

7.

In order to resolve the controversy, we deem it appropriate to have the petitioner examined, to ascertain the extent and nature of his orthopaedic disability, by an experienced faculty Member/team of faculty Members in the Department of Orthopaedics in the AIIMS. We request the Director of AIIMS, therefore, to have the petitioner examined by a Specialist from the Department of Orthopaedics, preferably one who deals with orthopaedic disabilities of the lower limbs.

8.

For the said purpose, the petitioner may present himself in the office of the Director AIIMS on 6 June 2026 at 11 am.

9.

We request the AIIMS to examine the degree of orthopaedic disability of the petitioner in the light of the aforenoted two contrasting certificates, copies of which were also be provided to the concerned Doctor/team of Doctors, and certify as to the extent in degree of orthopaedic disability of the petitioner.

10.

In order to ensure compliance with this direction, let a copy of this order be provided to Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, who appears for the AIIMS, with the record of this petition, so that Mr. Swain would have with him both the certificates issued under the PWD Act as well as by the Medical Board of the respondents.

11.

We request the AIIMS, through Mr Swain, to ensure that the result of the examination of the petitioner is filed in the present proceedings, with copies to learned Counsel for the parties, before the next date of hearing.

12.

Dr. George undertakes, on instructions from his client, to abide by the outcome by the examination conducted by the AIIMS.

13.

Renotify on 14 July 2026.

14.

Dasti to both sides, and to Mr Swain."

2.

The medical certificate of the AIIMS, which has been placed on record consequent to our aforesaid reference, reads thus:

"ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES Ansari Nagar, New Delhi-110029 No.F.2--60/Medical Board/2026-Estt.(H.) Dated: 16.06.2026

Subject: Report of the medical board constituted at AIIMS New Delhi for medical examination of Petitioner Vikas Kumar in compliance with Court order dated 26.05.2026 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide W.P. (C) 4784/2026 titled Vikas Kumar Versus The Union of India & Ors.

A medical board has been constituted by the Medical Superintendent AIIMS, on subject noted above. The board consisted of the following members:

1.

Dr. Gita Handa - Chairperson Prof. & Head, Deptt. of P.M.R.

2.

Dr. Sahil Batra - Member Asstt. Professor, Deptt. of Orthopaedics

3.

Dr. Sukhsharan Kaur Dhillon - Member Senior Resident, Deptt. of P.M.R.

4.

Dr. Tony Joseph - Member Secy. Department of Hospital Administration

5.

Dr. K. Kishore - Observer Department of Hospital Administration

The Candidate Mr Vikas Kumar was examined in PMR OPD on 08.06.2026, and X-ray investigations of the Lower Limb were done.

In view of above, the meeting of the medical board was held on 16.06.2026 (Tuesday) at 04:00 P.M. in Consultation Room No. 13, M.S. Office Wing, Ground floor, AIIMS, New Delhi. All members were present. The patient was examined in detail, and the investigations were reviewed.

The medical board is of the opinion that the candidate is having 52% (fifty two percentage) permanent physical impairment in relation to the right lower limb. There is minimal impairment (limitation in the terminal range of motion of the left knee and ankle), which is not affecting any of the activities.

Sd/- Sd/-Dr. Gita Handa) (Dr. Sahil Batra) Chairperson Member Sd/- Sd/-(Dr. Sukhsharan Kaur Dhillion) (Dr. Tony Joseph) Member Member Secy. Sd/-(Dr. K. Kishore) Observer"

3.

We deem it appropriate, instead of returning a subjective decision on that basis, to request the Central Administrative Tribunal to reconsider the entitlement of the petitioner to appointment keeping in view the aforesaid report issued by the AIIMS dated 16 June 2026.

4.

We make it clear that it shall be open to the Tribunal to take a view one way or other and we are not expressing any opinion in that regard.

5.

Needless to say, the Tribunal would consider the matter uninfluenced by the order under challenge.

6.

Let both sides appear before the Tribunal on 31 August 2026. Neither side would be entitled to seek adjournment on that date.

7.

Inasmuch as this case deals with a person who is differently abled, we request the Tribunal to hear arguments on the date fixed and decide the matter as expeditiously thereafter as possible.

8.

The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.”

“The medical board is of the opinion that the candidate is having 52% (fifty two percentage) permanent physical impairment in relation to the right lower limb. There is minimal impairment (limitation in the terminal range of motion of the left knee and ankle), which is not affecting any of the activities.”

“34 There is a critical qualitative difference between the barriers faced by persons with disabilities and other marginalized groups. In order to enable persons with disabilities to lead a life of equal dignity and worth, it is not enough to mandate that discrimination against them is impermissible. That is necessary, but not sufficient. We must equally ensure, as a society, that we provide them the additional support and facilities that are necessary for them to offset the impact of their disability.

This Court in its judgment in Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India MANU/SC/0574/2016 : (2016) 7 SCC 761, noted that a key component of equality is the principle of reasonable differentiation and specific measures must be undertaken, recognizing the different needs of persons with disabilities, to pave the way for substantive equality. Justice A K Sikri stated in the above judgement:

“40.

In international human rights law, equality is founded upon two complementary principles: non-discrimination and reasonable differentiation. The principle of non-discrimination seeks to ensure that all persons can equally enjoy and exercise all their rights and freedoms. Discrimination occurs due to arbitrary denial of opportunities for equal participation. For example, when public facilities and services are set on standards out of the reach of persons with disabilities, it leads to exclusion and denial of rights. Equality not only implies preventing discrimination (example, the protection of individuals against unfavourable treatment by introducing anti-discrimination laws), but goes beyond in remedying discrimination against groups suffering systematic discrimination in society. In concrete terms, it means embracing the notion of positive rights, affirmative action and reasonable accommodation.”

(emphasis supplied)

35 The principle of reasonable accommodation captures the positive obligation of the State and private parties to provide additional support to persons with disabilities to facilitate their full and effective participation in society. The concept of reasonable accommodation is developed in section (H) below. For the present, suffice it to say that, for a person with disability, the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights to equality, the six freedoms and the right to life under Article 21 will ring hollow if they are not given this additional support that helps make these rights real and meaningful for them. Reasonable accommodation is the instrumentality – are an obligation as a society – to enable the disabled to enjoy the constitutional guarantee of equality and non-discrimination.

In this context, it would be apposite to remember Justice R M Lodha’s (as he then was) observation in Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India (2018) 2 SCC 397, where he stated:

“9…In the matters of providing relief to those who are differently abled, the approach and attitude of the executive must be liberal and relief oriented and not obstructive or lethargic…”

G.2 Scheme of the 2016 Act”

“1.

refer the matter to the competent authority in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, for an authoritative view on the medical/evaluation aspect, in accordance with the applicable Guidelines and Government instructions, before finally determining the Applicant's entitlement to appointment; 2. direct/permit appropriate verification of the disability certificate relied upon by the Applicant as Annexure P-20 from the issuing/competent authority or the relevant official records of the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, in view of the apparent discrepancy noticed between the document filed before the Hon'ble High Court and the certificate available from the official records/website; and 3. pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” is hereby rejected. Accordingly, in our considered opinion, the balance of convenience in the instant OA clearly lies with the applicant. The OA has merit and deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. We hereby reverse our earlier decision dated 05.12.2025 dismissing OA No. 179/2023. We quash and set aside the impugned letter bearing No. 4976/SFII/A-12025/(I-Geol.)/2020–Pers.I dated 22.12.2021 (Annexure A-1), passed by Respondent No. 2. Further, Respondent No. 2 is directed to consider re-appointing the applicant (Roll No. 2690288) to the post of Geologist under category OBC (PH) and restore back the offer of appointment letter dated 15.12.2021 issued to the applicant. Respondent No. 2 is further directed to consider the applicant’s appointment along with those candidates who had cleared the examination alongside him. Needless to mention, the applicant would be entitled to all consequential benefits, like seniority and fixation of pay. However, there will be no payment of any back wages or salary, on the principle of ‘No Work No Pay’. MAs, if any, are also disposed of in a similar manner. However, there will be no order on payment of costs.