The Supreme Court has unequivocally affirmed that candidates with mental illness, as defined under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, are eligible for Group C Auditor posts in the Comptroller and Auditor General’s office, provided they meet the criteria under the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment’s 2021 notification. This judgment resolves a critical conflict between administrative discretion and statutory mandate, reinforcing the principle that disability-based reservations must be implemented as prescribed by law, not by institutional preference.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from the rejection of two candidates with benchmark disabilities - Sudhanshu Kardam (Specific Learning Disability) and Shri Amit Yadav (Mental Illness) - for the post of Auditor in the Indian Audit & Accounts Department (IA&AD). Both had cleared the Staff Selection Commission’s Combined Graduate Level Examination (SSC CGLE-2018) and were initially recommended for appointment. However, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) returned their dossiers in September 2021, citing internal guidelines that deemed the Auditor post unsuitable for persons with mental illness or specific learning disabilities.
Procedural History
- 2018: SSC notified vacancies for Group B and C posts, including two Auditor positions under the ‘Other PwD’ category.
- 2020: Both candidates cleared Tier-I and Tier-II of SSC CGLE-2018 and opted for the Auditor post (Post Code D33).
- 2021: CAG rejected their candidature, claiming the post was not suitable for mental illness or SLD candidates.
- 2022: Amit Yadav filed Original Application No. 339 of 2022 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), invoking the RPwD Act.
- 2023: CAT ruled in favor of Amit Yadav, directing CAG to constitute a Medical Board to assess fitness.
- 2025: Delhi High Court set aside CAT’s order, restoring CAG’s rejection.
- 2024: Sudhanshu Kardam, another PwD candidate with SLD, sought impleadment in the High Court proceedings, which was granted.
- 2026: Supreme Court granted special leave and heard arguments on the applicability of the January 4, 2021, DEPwD notification.
Relief Sought
The appellants sought appointment to the Auditor post or, alternatively, to comparable Group C posts identified as suitable under the 2021 notification. They contended that the CAG’s refusal violated the statutory mandate under the RPwD Act and the binding nature of the Ministry’s official notification.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment’s Gazette Notification dated 4th January, 2021, which explicitly included ‘mental illness’ and ‘specific learning disability’ as eligible for Group C Auditor posts, overrides prior administrative exclusions under the RPwD Act, and whether candidates can be denied appointment on grounds not recognized by the statutory framework.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant relied on the 2021 DEPwD notification as a binding statutory instrument issued under Section 33 of the RPwD Act, which mandates the identification of suitable posts for persons with benchmark disabilities. Counsel argued that the notification superseded the outdated 2013 list and that CAG’s refusal to implement it amounted to a violation of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution. He cited National Federation of the Blind v. Union of India to emphasize that administrative convenience cannot override statutory rights of persons with disabilities.
For the Respondent
The CAG contended that the Auditor post required duties incompatible with mental illness, citing internal medical assessments and historical precedent. It argued that the 2021 notification was merely advisory and that the final determination of suitability rested with the cadre controlling authority. It further claimed that the candidates were not entitled to appointment in a post not originally identified as suitable during the 2018 recruitment cycle.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous textual and purposive interpretation of the RPwD Act, 2016, particularly Section 33, which mandates the identification of suitable posts by an expert committee and requires periodic review. The Court held that the 2021 notification was not a mere policy guideline but a legally binding exercise of statutory power under Section 33, issued after exhaustive deliberation by a constitutionally mandated expert committee.
"The notification dated 4th January, 2021, issued under Section 33 of the RPwD Act, supersedes all prior lists and is binding on all cadre controlling authorities. Any contrary practice is legally unsustainable."
The Court rejected the CAG’s argument that suitability was a matter of administrative discretion, noting that Section 34 of the Act explicitly extends reservation benefits to persons with mental illness and specific learning disability. The Court emphasized that the purpose of the RPwD Act is to dismantle systemic exclusion, not to permit institutional gatekeeping under the guise of medical assessment.
The Court further noted that the CAG’s own affidavit confirmed that the Group C posts of Assistant (Audit) and Auditor-II were now officially recognized as suitable for these disabilities. The Court concluded that the only remaining barrier was procedural delay by the SSC in forwarding dossiers, not substantive ineligibility.
The Verdict
The appellant won. The Supreme Court held that the 2021 DEPwD notification is binding and that candidates with mental illness and specific learning disability are eligible for Group C Auditor posts. The Court directed the SSC to forward the dossiers within two weeks and mandated that the CAG appoint the candidates to suitable posts or create supernumerary positions if original vacancies are filled.
What This Means For Similar Cases
The 2021 Notification Is Binding Law
- Practitioners must treat the DEPwD’s 2021 notification as a statutory instrument, not a policy suggestion.
- Any government department refusing to implement it can be challenged under Article 14 and Article 21.
- Legal arguments must now cite the notification as the definitive list of suitable posts for benchmark disabilities.
Administrative Discretion Cannot Override Statutory Eligibility
- Departments cannot unilaterally exclude categories listed in the notification under the pretext of "fitness" or "suitability."
- Medical assessments may be conducted only to determine functional capacity, not to deny eligibility based on disability category.
- The burden now lies on the employer to prove that a candidate cannot perform essential functions, not on the candidate to prove they can.
Supernumerary Posts Are Mandatory When Vacancies Are Filled
- Where original vacancies are filled, authorities must create supernumerary posts to ensure compliance with reservation obligations.
- This principle applies across all central government recruitments under the RPwD Act.
- Failure to do so constitutes a violation of the statutory duty under Section 33 and may attract contempt proceedings.
