PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities

“Even if the originally advertised posts are filled, the authorities must create supernumerary posts to accommodate the eligible PwD candidates.”, In a significant ruling reinforcing the rights of persons with benchmark disabilities in public employment, the Supreme Court directed the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) and the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) to consider two candidates with disabilities for appointment to suitable Group ‘C’ posts. The Court further clarified that if the originally advertised posts have already been filled, the authorities must create supernumerary posts to accommodate them.

The judgment was delivered on 12 March 2026 by a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta arising from the Combined Graduate Level Examination (CGLE) 2018 recruitment dispute.

“Candidates With Benchmark Disabilities Must Be Accommodated In Suitable Identified Posts”

The Court noted that after the issuance of the Central Government notification dated 4 January 2021, certain Group ‘C’ posts such as Assistant (Audit) and Auditor-II were identified as suitable for persons with benchmark disabilities including mental illness and specific learning disability.

The Court observed that there was no longer any impediment in accommodating the candidates against such posts once the legal position changed. The bench held that the authorities must process their appointment once the dossiers are forwarded by the SSC.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose from the Staff Selection Commission’s Combined Graduate Level Examination (CGLE) 2018, conducted to fill Group ‘B’ and Group ‘C’ posts in various departments of the Government of India. Two vacancies were earmarked for the post of Auditor in the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) under the PwD (Other) category.

Respondent Amit Yadav, who suffered from mental illness with 55% disability, successfully cleared all stages of the examination and was recommended for appointment as Auditor. However, the CAG returned his dossier to SSC stating that the post of Auditor had not been identified as suitable for persons suffering from mental illness.

Aggrieved by the rejection, Amit Yadav approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) invoking the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The Tribunal directed the authorities to constitute a Medical Board to assess his fitness for the post and to appoint him if found suitable.

However, the Delhi High Court later set aside the CAT’s order, restoring the communication rejecting the candidature.

Meanwhile, another PwD candidate Sudhanshu Kardam, suffering from Specific Learning Disability, sought intervention as he was similarly affected and had pending proceedings before the Tribunal. He subsequently approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s judgment.

Legal Issues And Court’s Observations

The principal issue before the Supreme Court was whether candidates with benchmark disabilities who had been recommended in the recruitment process could be denied appointment on the ground that the post was not identified as suitable for their disability category.

The Court examined the notification dated 4 January 2021 issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, which revised the list of posts suitable for persons with disabilities pursuant to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

The notification expanded the categories of disabilities entitled to reservation, including mental illness and specific learning disability, and updated the list of posts suitable for such candidates.

During the proceedings, the CAG filed an affidavit stating that after the 2021 notification, certain Group ‘C’ posts had been identified as suitable for candidates suffering from mental illness and specific learning disabilities, and expressed willingness to accommodate both candidates subject to recommendation from the SSC.

The Supreme Court noted that this affidavit effectively resolved the controversy and indicated that the candidates could now be appointed to appropriate posts.

Court’s Directions

The Court directed the Staff Selection Commission to forward the dossiers of the two candidates to the CAG within two weeks. Once received, the CAG must consider them for appointment to suitable Group ‘C’ posts identified for their benchmark disabilities.

Importantly, the Court clarified that if the vacancies advertised in the 2018 recruitment process have already been filled, the authorities must create supernumerary posts to accommodate both candidates. The appointments will take effect from the date the candidates join service.

Decision

Disposing of the appeal, the Supreme Court ensured that candidates with benchmark disabilities are not denied employment merely due to administrative technicalities regarding post identification. The judgment reinforces the mandate of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, emphasizing that public authorities must actively facilitate accommodation of eligible disabled candidates in appropriate posts.

Date of Decision: 12 March 2026