The High Court of Bombay has allowed the writ petition and set aside the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature for the post of Group-D Level 1 in the Indian Railways, observing that it is mandatory under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (Act) that reasonable accommodation is provided to a person with a disability as a prerequisite to assessing their eligibility.
The case arose from a writ petition filed by the petitioner, a blind person having 75% permanent blindness, impugning the rejection letter issued by the Indian Railways under which her candidature for the post of Assistant was rejected on the ground that the board from which she had passed her matriculation exam (Uttama Course) was not recognized and was not considered as having done her matriculation. The petitioner had appeared for the examination and passed with gracious marks and was called for medical and document verification, after which her candidature was rejected.
Hearing the petition, the bench of Justice R.I. Chagla and Justice Advait M. Sethna noted that the preliminary objections taken by the respondent on the maintainability of the alternate remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) cannot be accepted since the petitioner was not merely raising a service dispute but was also seeking enforcement of his rights and obligation under the Act. The Court further noted that the petitioner has relied on the government resolution dated February 28, 2007, where the Uttama Course has been shown to have equivalence to the SSC, and that the full bench decision relied upon by the respondents related to a different factual context and cannot be said to be of universal applicability. Therefore, it has no applicability to the case at hand.
Referring to the decision of the Re.: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Service (Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) 2 of 2024: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 481) & Sujata Bora Vs. Coal India Limited & Ors. (2026 SCC OnLine SC 58), the Court held that eligibility of persons with disabilities must be assessed only after providing the principle of reasonable accommodation, and any indirect discrimination that results in the exclusion of PwDs must be interfered with in order to uphold substantive equality. The court also held that even if the qualification’s equivalence was disputed, the candidature could not be rejected without considering reasonable accommodation under the Act.
Accordingly, the Court has quashed the rejection letter and directed reconsideration of the petitioner’s candidacy within a period of three weeks while keeping one post vacant.
Appearances:
Advocate Uday Warunjikar a/w Advocate Sakshi Inamdar and Advocate Jenish Jain i/by Advocate Sumit S. Kate for the Petitioner.
Advocate Suresh Kumar for the Respondents.
