The Delhi High Court on October 16, 2025 heard a petition by a blind candidate seeking to challenge his rejection from an advertised post by respondent no. 1 AAI (Airports Authority of India) . Justices C. Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul directed the petitioner to be re-assessed as denying rights to a disabled person under Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act 2016 was against our constitutional ethos.
The case arose when the petitioner, a blind candidate, was denied appointment to the post of Junior Executive (Law), even though the position had been identified as suitable for persons with blindness or low vision under the RPwD Act 2016 He had applied to the post in pursuant to the respondent’s advertisement, clearly disclosing his blindness, and successfully cleared the Computer-Based Test (CBT) held on October 21, 2023, with results declared on November 23, 2023. However, during document verification, the respondents informed him on May 23, 2024 that his selection was withheld due to pending confirmation of whether he met the requirements or not . Following this the respondents even mailed the petitioner stating that “Reading & Writing” and “Seeing” were essential requirements for the post and that the petitioner’s form indicated he could not perform these functions, making him ineligible.The petitioner, after being given a chance for reassessment on 22 October 2024, was rejected again by the medical board certifying him as unfit to perform work by “seeing,” leading to the cancellation of his candidature on December 13, 2024 under Note 8 of the Notification dated January 4, 2021. The petitioner thus approached the Court, challenging both the cancellation of his candidature and the validity of Note 8. The petitioner’s counsel argued that since the post of Junior Executive (Law) was identified as suitable for blind and low-vision candidates, excluding blind applicants was unjustified. He emphasized that the Act’s identification process already accounts for functional requirements and the use of assistive technology, enabling blind candidates to perform the duties effectively. He further contended that medical examinations cannot be used to reassess suitability for an identified post, and that interpreting “seeing” literally would undermine the purpose of reservation and make appointments dependent on medical certification, contrary to the Act. To this, Respondent No. 1argued that assessing a candidate’s functional suitability lies within the appointing authority’s discretion, as efficiency in performing duties is paramount, and granting relief would require rewriting the advertisement. Similarly, Respondent No. 2 (Union of India) submitted that blindness does not inherently preclude functional “seeing,” noting that assistive devices allow blind candidates to perform visually dependent tasks.
The Court observed that the respondents’ application of Note 8 of the DEPWD Notification and their interpretation of the functional requirement of “seeing” were incorrect and discriminatory, contrary to the RPwD Act. It referred to In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 481, where it was held that enforcement of the rights of persons with disabilities under the Act is a “super statute” and cannot be denied merely because a petitioner participated in the selection process. Therefore, the Court directed that the petitioners’ functional suitability for the posts shall be reassessed without any medical examination, strictly following the principles laid down in this judgment and in In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 481. Only if a candidate is found entirely unsuitable even after this reassessment can they be rejected. The reassessment is to be completed within two weeks of the judgment, and those found suitable shall be appointed within four weeks, with continuity of service and all benefits, except back wages, in line with other candidates appointed under Advertisement 03/2023. Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the petitions with no order as to costs.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner- Mr. S.K. Rungta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv.
For the Respondents- Mr. Digvijay Rai, SC with Mr. Archit Mishra, Adv. for R-1/AAI with Mr. Subhash Kumar, AGM (HR), Ms. Priyanka Rana,AM (HR) Mr. Yatinder Choudhary, Law Officer (Law) and Mr. Jayesh Bhargava, JE (Law) (AAI) Mr. Vinay Yadav, Sr. PC with Mr. Rahul Kumar Sharma, GP with Mr. Ansh Kalra, Ms. Kamna Behrani and Mr. Siddharth Gautam, Advs. with for R-2/UOI
