RPwD Act | Candidature Cannot Be Mechanically Rejected For Functional Classification Without Expert Evaluation Of Reasonable Accommodation: Bombay High Court

"The concept of reasonable accommodation would encompass within itself the deployment of a purposive and meaningful construction... to ensure a full and effective participation of persons with disabilities in the society and if the whole idea was to exclude conditions that prevent their full and effective participation as equal members of society, a broad interpretation of the concept of reasonable accommodation which will further the objective of the RPwD Act and Article 41 of the Directive Principles of State Policy is mandated," Bombay High Court

MUMBAI: Emphasizing that public authorities cannot mechanically oust a candidate with benchmark disabilities without an expert assessment evaluating functional capability under the principle of reasonable accommodation, the Bombay High Court on November 3, 2026, set aside a Central Administrative Tribunal order upholding the rejection of a candidate's selection as a Geophysicist in the Geological Survey of India. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait M. Sethna held that the statutory mandate of reasonable accommodation under Section 2(y) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is a fundamental right that demands a scientific, functional evaluation rather than a rigid disqualification based strictly on disability classifications.

The petitioner, who has a 55% locomotor disability affecting both legs, cleared all three stages of the Combined Geo-Scientist Examination 2022 and was recommended by the Union Public Service Commission for appointment as Geophysicist Group 'A'. However, the Central Standing Medical Board marked him "Fit under PH category (BL 55%)", prompting the Ministry of Mines to cancel his candidature on the ground that the advertised functional requirements permitted only One Leg (OL), One Arm (OA), or Hard of Hearing (HH) candidates, and not Both Legs (BL). The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed his challenge through a cryptic order, leading to the present writ petition.

Whether the rejection of a candidate recommended by the UPSC on the ground that his disability classification (both legs affected) does not conform to the advertised functional requirement is sustainable without an expert functional assessment evaluating the doctrine of reasonable accommodation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016?

Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in summarily dismissing the candidate's challenge without addressing the apparent contradiction in the Medical Board's finding certifying him fit while recording a both-leg disability?

Tribunal Passed Cryptic Order Without Reconciling Inherent Contradictions In Medical Report

Examining the record, the High Court observed that the Central Standing Medical Board had recorded an apparent contradiction by declaring the petitioner "Fit" under the physically handicapped category while noting his disability as both legs affected at 55%. The bench noted that the Tribunal failed to assess how such a candidate, having cleared three strenuous stages of the national examination, could be summarily disqualified without determining his actual functional capacity.

"In our considered view the same is cryptic, there is no finding much less reasoning recorded on the aspect of the conclusion reached by the Respondent No.4-CSMB in the present proceedings where there appears to be contradiction... What is quintessential in such cases is a specific finding by an expert/medical board as to whether the candidate/person concerned is Fit for the present post qua the functional requirements of such post."

Judicial Perspective Cannot Replace Expert Opinion On Functional Competence

The Court underscored that while judges may form an impression from a candidate's physical appearance and gait, the determination of functional fitness must be grounded entirely in specialized medical and scientific appraisal.

"In this context, the Petitioner was before this Court, prima facie, in our brief interaction with him and his gait, walk, we also found him otherwise Fit. However, our opinion is not sufficient in matters like these. There has to be a proper medical/scientific report certifying as to whether the person concerned is functionally able to carry out the responsibilities and duties as the post/job would demand."

Reasonable Accommodation Is A Fundamental Right Rooted In Part III And Article 41

Invoking Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Bench highlighted that the concept of reasonable accommodation defined under Section 2(y) of the RPwD Act is not merely a statutory guideline but an enforceable fundamental right flowing from Articles 14, 21, and 41 of the Constitution. The Court explained that public employers are duty-bound to adopt a purposive approach to facilitate equal participation rather than erect administrative barriers.

"The Supreme Court in series of judgments has highlighted the concept of 'Reasonable Accommodation' being a concept enshrined in RPwD Act, which emanates from Article 41 of the Constitution of India read with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution... It is imperative in the given factual complexion for the Tribunal to have also considered the above decisions entailing the principle of Reasonable Accommodation and its applicability to the given fact situation."

De Novo Functional Assessment Crucial To Balance Public Duties And Disability Rights

The Court noted the petitioner's contention that nearly seventy percent of a Geophysicist's responsibilities entail office desk work such as data processing and geological modelling. Given that the petitioner had completed previous field expeditions during his academic training, the bench ruled that a thorough medical assessment must determine whether he can perform the essential duties of the post with appropriate accommodations.

"In the given facts, it is therefore necessary to ascertain whether the Petitioner can actually perform the job mandated of a Geophysicist, when the Respondent No.4-CSMB has classified him Fit under PH category with disability in both legs to the extent of 55%. Under these circumstances, a thorough and overall medical evaluation, qua the fitness of the Petitioner in the post concerned, will be of prime importance."

Setting aside the Tribunal's order, the High Court remanded the matter to the Chairperson of the Central Standing Medical Board, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, directing the constitution of a medical board to conduct a de novo functional assessment within four weeks. The Court directed that if the board finds the petitioner functionally capable of performing the duties of a Geophysicist, the respondents must process his appointment expeditiously, while continuing the interim protection that reserved one post for the petitioner.

Date of Decision: November 3, 2026