The Supreme Court has allowed the appeal filed by a woman with benchmark disability, holding that the Calcutta High Court’s Division Bench erred in denying relief solely on the ground that the recruitment panel had expired, despite the appellant having been wrongly declared medically unfit and subsequently found eligible under the disability reservation in a recruitment process conducted by Coal India Limited.
The case arose from a 2019 recruitment advertisement issued by CIL for the post of Management Trainee. The appellant applied under the visually handicapped category and was selected up to the stage of initial medical examination. However, she was declared medically unfit on the grounds that she suffered not only from visual impairment but also from residual partial hemiparesis. Aggrieved, she approached the Calcutta High Court.
A Single Judge of the High Court had held that CIL, being a public sector undertaking, could not deny appointment to a candidate with multiple disabilities and quashed the medical unfitness declaration, while moulding relief by directing that the appellant be considered in the next recruitment cycle. This order was later set aside by the Division Bench on the ground that the recruitment panel had expired, prompting the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.
Allowing the appeal, the Bench of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. V. Viswanathan held that the Division Bench was not justified in denying relief solely on the ground of expiry of the recruitment panel, particularly when the appellant was wrongly denied employment in the first place. The Court noted that pursuant to its directions, a Medical Board constituted by AIIMS had assessed Bora’s disability at 57%, which was above the benchmark disability threshold, rendering her eligible for appointment under the reserved category.
Emphasising the concept of “reasonable accommodation” under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the Court reiterated that reasonable accommodation is a facet of substantive equality flowing from Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and acts as a gateway right enabling persons with disabilities to effectively participate in society.
The Court also took note of the intersectionality of disability and gender in the present case. “A single woman is before us who has the urge to succeed notwithstanding the disability she encounters,” the court observed. The Court held that technicalities like expiry of the panel for the year cannot come in the way of doing complete justice, especially when the denial of employment in 2019 was no fault of her’s. Reference was made to Jane Kaushik v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2257.
The Supreme Court observed that the rights of persons with disabilities must also be viewed through the lens of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), noting that business enterprises, particularly public sector undertakings, have an obligation to respect and further disability rights as part of their social role. The Court referred to international frameworks and observed that disability inclusion is not merely a matter of compliance, but forms an essential component of the “social” dimension of corporate responsibility.
Applying this principle to the facts of the case, the Court stated that it was confident that Coal India Limited would give a suitable desk job with appropriate workplace accommodation in line with universal design under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.
In exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court directed the creation of a supernumerary post for the appellant. The Court further requested that the appellant be posted at North Eastern Coalfields, Coal India Limited, in Assam.
With these directions, the Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court and disposed of the appeal.
Appearances
Appellant- Mr. Amol Nirmal Kumar Suryawanshi, Adv. Mr. Prashant Sri Kant Kenjale, Adv. Ms. Srishty Pandey, Adv. Ms Damini Viswakarma, Adv. Mr. B. Dhananjay, Adv. M/S. Juristrust Law Offices, AOR
Respondents- Mr. Vivek Narayan Sharma, AOR Mrs. Mahima Bhardwaj Kalucha, Adv. Mr. Akash Singh, Adv. Mr. Adhiraj Wadhera, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Jha, Adv.
