Candidate With Benchmark Disability Refused a Post Identified as Suitable

The core rule: the disability for which a post is identified cannot disqualify you

Section 33 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 requires the government to identify posts that can be held by persons with each kind of benchmark disability. Section 34 then reserves at least 4 per cent of vacancies in each group of posts for persons with benchmark disabilities. Identification is not a formality. It is the government's own considered statement that a person with that disability can do that job, with or without reasonable accommodation.

From this follows a simple point that departments sometimes forget. If the post of, say, a Lower Division Clerk has been identified as suitable for a person with one leg affected, a candidate with one leg affected cannot be found unfit for that post because one leg is affected. The medical board can still examine whether the candidate has some other condition that makes him unfit, or whether the disability is of a different kind or extent than the one identified. What it cannot do is treat the identified disability itself as the defect.

Section 20 adds a broader protection: no government establishment shall discriminate against a person with disability in any matter relating to employment. A refusal that rests only on the disability, for a post the government has already said suits that disability, runs into both sections.

How refusals usually happen

• The medical board's 'unfit' finding. The pre-appointment medical examination applies the general standards for the post and finds the candidate below them, without noticing that the candidate was selected against a PwBD vacancy.
• 'Field duty' or 'physical demands' objections. The department says the job involves travel, standing or climbing, even though the identified-posts list records the functional requirements for that post and found them compatible with the category.
• Advertisement narrower than the list. The notice reserved the post only for some sub-categories, leaving out others that the 2021 list shows as suitable.
• Merit candidates with disability. A candidate who qualified on general merit, without using the reservation, is refused because of the disability.
• Certificate problems. The disability certificate is in an old format, issued by the wrong authority, or shows a percentage the department reads differently.
• Claimed exemption. The establishment says its posts are exempt from reservation but cannot produce a valid exemption notification.

The provisions that decide these cases

Finding your post in the identified-posts list

The 2021 notification is arranged by group and post. For each post it gives the functional requirements, written as short codes such as S (sitting), ST (standing), W (walking), BN (bending), L (lifting), MF (manipulation with fingers), RW (reading and writing), SE (seeing), H (hearing) and C (communication), and the categories of disability for which the post is suitable, such as B (blind), LV (low vision), D (deaf), HH (hard of hearing), OA (one arm), OL (one leg), BL (both legs), CP (cerebral palsy), Dw (dwarfism), AAV (acid attack victim) and others. Read your entry carefully, since a post suitable for OL may not be listed for BL, and one suitable for LV may not be listed for B.

Then compare it with three things: the category on your disability certificate, the sub-categories the recruitment notice reserved for your post, and the reason given in the refusal. If all three point to a category the list shows as suitable, and the refusal rests on that same disability, you have the clearest kind of case. If the notice reserved fewer categories than the list allows, there is a separate argument that the advertisement itself was too narrow, but it needs to be raised early, ideally before the selection is over.

If your exact post name is not in the list, do not assume you have no case. The list is indicative, posts with similar functions are often grouped, and the 2024 OM treats a post that was not assessed as open to all categories unless the government has exempted it. Advocate B.K. Singh usually asks the candidate to bring a printed copy of the relevant page of the list, marked, because in many of these disputes nobody on the department's side has actually opened it.

The medical examination: fitness for the job, not absence of the disability

A pre-appointment medical examination is meant to check whether you can do the duties of the post. For a candidate selected against a PwBD vacancy, the question is whether, with the identified disability, you can perform the functional requirements listed for that post, with reasonable accommodation where needed. A board that applies the standards meant for non-disabled candidates and declares you unfit for the very thing the reservation contemplates has asked the wrong question.

Courts have repeatedly insisted on an individual assessment rather than a blanket rule. In the context of admission to a medical course, the Supreme Court in Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India (2024) held that the percentage of disability alone cannot disqualify a candidate and that the board must assess what the candidate can actually do. The same reasoning is regularly urged before tribunals in employment cases.

When you ask for a review, ask also that the board include a specialist in your kind of disability, such as an orthopaedic surgeon for locomotor disability or an ophthalmologist for low vision, and that it be given the functional requirements of the post from the 2021 list. A general physician working from a checklist written for non-disabled candidates will often reach the same wrong answer a second time. A board told what the post actually needs usually reaches a different one.

Ask for the medical board's report and the standard it applied. If the finding rests on the identified disability, a representation pointing to the list and to Sections 20 and 34 often brings a review board. If the board found a separate condition, the appeal-medical-board route applies, explained on the page on appealing a pre-appointment medical finding.

What to do after a refusal

1. Get the refusal and the medical report in writing

   An oral 'you are unfit' is not enough. Ask the appointing authority for the order and the medical board's findings. Under the rules of natural justice you are entitled to know the reason.

2. Mark your post in the 2021 list

   Print the page of the identified-posts notification showing your post, its functional requirements and the categories suitable for it. Highlight your category.

3. Check your certificate

   Make sure your disability certificate is in the format under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017, issued by the notified medical authority, and that the category and percentage match what you claimed. Get a UDID card if you do not have one.

4. Write to the Grievance Redressal Officer and the appointing authority

   Section 23 requires every government establishment to appoint a Grievance Redressal Officer for persons with disabilities. Send your representation to that officer and to the appointing authority, attaching the list extract, the certificate and the medical report, and ask for a review medical board or a decision within a fixed time.

5. Consider a complaint to the Chief Commissioner

   The Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities can inquire into deprivation of rights and make recommendations, and the authority must inform it of action taken within three months. This is useful pressure but does not replace the tribunal.

6. Approach the tribunal in time

   If the refusal stands, file an Original Application, asking the tribunal to set aside the refusal, direct appointment or a fresh medical assessment, and keep one PwBD post vacant meanwhile.

Ask for interim protection of a post early if the vacancies may be filled from a waiting list; the page on interim orders from the CAT explains how tribunals decide such requests.

Chief Commissioner or tribunal: using both without losing time

Many candidates go first to the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, and that is often a sensible step. The office has the powers of a civil court for summoning and records under Section 77, and a recommendation in your favour carries weight with the department. Section 76 requires the authority to tell the Chief Commissioner within three months what it has done on the recommendation, and to give reasons if it does not accept it.

The difficulty is that a recommendation is not a binding order. If the department does not follow it, you still need the tribunal. And the time spent before the Chief Commissioner does not automatically stop the limitation period under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. Candidates who wait a year for a hearing before the Chief Commissioner sometimes find the PwBD vacancy filled and the tribunal asking why they came so late.

A practical course is to send the representation to the department and the complaint to the Chief Commissioner at the same time, and to keep a firm date in mind, six months from the representation, by which you will file before the tribunal if nothing has moved. State government posts have State Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities with similar functions.

How long it takes, and what you spend

Selected on general merit, then refused for disability

A candidate with a benchmark disability who qualifies on general merit is counted against the unreserved vacancies, and the PwBD vacancy goes to the next disabled candidate. That is a benefit to everyone. Some departments, however, then refuse the merit candidate because the post was not reserved for his category, or because he 'did not claim' disability.

The 2024 OM of the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities says a person with benchmark disability cannot be denied appointment because of the disability merely because he did not claim reservation, and asks departments to follow DoPT's clarification of 27 September 2022 on this point. If you were selected on merit and refused for disability, the question is still whether the post is suitable for your category. If it is identified for you, the refusal is hard to defend.

If you did not mention the disability at all in the application, be prepared for the department to argue that you concealed it. The answer depends on what the form asked. Disclose your disability in future applications even if you do not claim reservation; it protects you later.

Exemptions, carried-forward vacancies and the 4 per cent count

Section 34 allows the government, having regard to the type of work, to exempt an establishment from the reservation by notification. Combat posts in the armed forces and certain police and CAPF posts have been exempted in this way; check the current notification for any particular service. Under the 2024 OM, only the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities can grant exemptions, for a maximum of three years. A department that says 'our posts are not suitable' without a notification has no exemption.

If a PwBD vacancy is not filled for want of a suitable candidate, Section 34(2) carries it forward to the next recruitment year, where it may be interchanged among the categories, and only after that may it be filled by a person without disability. If your vacancy was simply given to a non-disabled candidate in the same year, that is a separate breach worth raising.

The 4 per cent is computed on the total vacancies in the cadre strength, as the Supreme Court explained in Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind (2013) under the earlier law, and DoPT's OM of 15 January 2018 sets out how it is applied in direct recruitment. Questions about reservation in promotion are covered on the page on promotion rosters for SC, ST and PwBD employees.

Where to file, and when the forum is the High Court

For posts in central ministries, departments and bodies notified under Section 14(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal is the forum. Under Rule 6 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules the application goes to the bench where the cause of action arose wholly or in part, usually the bench covering the appointing office or the place where you received the refusal. Selections through SSC and UPSC are dealt with this way; see the pages on SSC candidate disputes and UPSC candidate cases.

For posts in public sector banks, central PSUs and other bodies not notified under Section 14(2), the remedy is a writ in the High Court; see the page on service writs for PSU, bank and CAPF staff. Candidates for state government posts go to the state tribunal where one exists, or the High Court, and the state's own list of identified posts applies.

Where a medical board in one city examined you for a post in another, the cause of action may arise in both places. Choose the bench with care and say in the application why it has jurisdiction. Name as respondents the ministry, the appointing authority and, where the selection was made by a commission, the commission too, so that any direction about keeping a vacancy or re-examining you binds everyone who can act on it.

Papers for your first meeting

After you join: accommodation and the facilities you can ask for

Winning the post is the first part. Section 20(2) requires every government establishment to provide reasonable accommodation and an appropriate barrier-free environment. That can mean a ground-floor seat, accessible toilets, screen-reading software, a sign language interpreter for meetings, or adjusted field duties. Ask in writing, describing what you need and why. A refusal of reasonable accommodation is itself discrimination under the Act.

DoPT instructions also give employees with disabilities preference in posting near their native place, relief from routine rotational transfers in many cases, and help with assistive devices. Transport allowance at double the normal rate is available to certain categories; the guide on double transport allowance for employees with disabilities explains eligibility.

Section 20(4) protects an employee who acquires a disability during service: he cannot be dispensed with or reduced in rank, and if unsuited to the current post may be shifted to another post with the same pay and benefits. That is not your situation as a candidate, but it is worth knowing for the career ahead.

Mistakes PwBD candidates make

• Not reading the identified-posts list. It is the single most useful document in these cases, and most candidates never look at it.
• Relying on an old certificate. Certificates issued under the 1995 Act or in a non-prescribed format are a common reason for rejection. Get a current certificate and UDID card well before document verification.
• Accepting an oral refusal. Without a written order and the board's report, there is nothing to challenge.
• Waiting for the Chief Commissioner alone. A recommendation is useful but not binding. Watch the tribunal's limitation period.
• Not asking for a post to be kept vacant. If PwBD vacancies are filled while your case runs, relief becomes harder.
• Mixing up certificate disputes with suitability. If the problem is the certificate's format, fix the certificate; the guide on scribe, compensatory time and certificate disputes deals with those questions.

Next step

Put the identified-posts entry, your certificate and the refusal side by side. If the refusal rests on the very disability for which your post is identified, you have a case worth pursuing quickly. If it rests on something else, such as a separate medical condition or a sub-category the list does not cover for your post, the route is different and may be narrower. If your offer is simply delayed rather than refused, see the page on a final result with no offer of appointment.

Advocate B.K. Singh tends to tell candidates that these cases are won on documents more than on argument. If you have been refused a post identified as suitable for your disability and want your papers checked, contact Advocate B.K. Singh for advice or for updates on the law.