RPwD Act | Hyper Rigid Approach While Dealing With Disabled Candidates Dilutes Purpose Of 'Reasonable Accommodation': Delhi High Court

A division bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul remarked “The approach of a Court, while dealing with candidates who fall within the parameters of the RPWD Act has to be qualitatively different from that which is adopted in the case of normally abled candidates. The Court must be sensitized to the necessity for reasonable accommodation, so as to promote and enhance inclusivity for the disabled in the general societal fabric, which would include the workplace, and, needless to say, entry into the workplace. Provisions envisaging reasonable accommodation, and support for persons with disabilities must be understood as such, and, in their implementation, Courts must proceed with this perspective in mind. It has to be remembered that provisions aiming at inclusion by reasonable accommodation are individual-centric, and, while the Government, or the executive, is empowered to have in place reasonable checks and balances to ensure that such provisions are not misused or exploited, and do not work in a manner which would complete skew the equation even between the disabled inter se, short of that, the Court has to attempt a liberal, and disabled-friendly interpretation of the provisions.”

"The Court cannot, therefore, in the case of such candidates, adopt as rigid an approach as it would adopt in the case of normally abled candidates as adopting such an approach might have an effect of diluting the intent and beneficial scope of the RPWD Act. At all times, the Court must endeavour to promote the aims of the said legislation and to ensure that the benefit of the legislation is extended as far as possible," it added.

The Court was considering the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board's (DSSSB) challenge to the Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) order granting exemption to respondent from typewriting test.

The respondent suffers from 63% Orthopaedic disability. He underwent a process of selection for recruitment to the post of Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) Grade IV. The selection required the candidate to undertake a typewriting test, which was only qualifying in nature.

While taking the typewriting test, the respondent experienced pain. He requested the examiner to exempt him from taking the test. However, the request was refused on the ground that he did not produce his disability certificate before the authorities at the time of undertaking the test.

Aggrieved by the fact that he was not selected or granted an exemption from the test, the respondent approached the CAT. The Tribunal granted relief to the respondent, noting that he was in possession of a disability certificate issued by the competent authority and that orthopaedically handicapped candidates were granted exemption from undertaking the typing test.

The DSSSB contended that the respondent was not entitled to relief as he had not produced his disability certificate at the time of undertaking the typewriting test. It further argued that the respondent raised the issue of not having been granted an exemption from the test only after the results had been declared.

The High Court referred to the Vikash Kumar v UPSC (LL 2021 SC 76), where the Supreme Court an appeal filed by a UPSC candidate whose request to provide him with a scribe for the Civil Services Examination Rules 2018 was rejected on the ground that a scribe could be provided only to blind candidates and candidates with locomotor disability or cerebral palsy with an impairment of at least 40%. The Apex Court had remarked that the approach and attitude of the executive must be liberal, relief oriented and not obstructive in the matters of providing relief to differently abled people.

The Court further referred to the Supreme Court's observations in Rajive Raturi v. Union of India (2024 LiveLaw (SC) 875), where the Union Government was directed to frame mandatory rules for ensuring that public places and services accessible to persons with disabilities. The Court had emphasized the State's duty to provide reasonable accommodation to disabled people to ensure accessibility, inclusion and equality.

The High Court remarked that a hyper-rigid insistence on following every formal or procedural requirement might breach the guarantee of equal opportunity provided in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.

The Court observed that exempting orthopaedic handicapped candidates from taking the typewriting test aims at reasonable accommodation for such candidates. It stated that for implementing such an accommodative provision, a rigid view cannot be taken which would dilute the purpose of such accommodation.

Therefore, the Court was of the view that merely because the respondent did not have his disability certificate at the time of undertaking the typewriting test, it cannot be a ground to disentitle him to the accommodation otherwise provided to candidates suffering from the said disability.

In view of the above, the Court upheld the CAT's order and dismissed DSSSB's petition. It clarified that the order was based on the peculiar circumstances of the case and cannot be treated as a carte blanche to do away with all procedural requirements.

Case title: Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) And Ors. vs. Sumit

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 226