Create Supernumerary Posts If Advertised Posts Filled: Supreme Court Asks CAG To Accommodate 2 PwBD Candidates In Audit & Accounts Department

The Apex Court was considering an appeal by special leave arising from the judgment of the Delhi High Court.

The Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held, “We are, therefore, of the considered view that the present appeal deserves to be disposed of in light of the additional affidavit filed by respondent No.1- CAG. The respondent No.2-SSC is directed to forthwith and not later than within a period of two weeks from today, forward the dossiers of the appellant herein, as well as R3 – Shri Amit Yadav to respondent No.1-CAG. Upon the dossiers being received, the appellant herein and R3 – Shri Amit Yadav shall be duly considered for appointment against Group ‘C’ posts in terms of the additional affidavit dated 16th February, 2026. In case the posts advertised vide notification dated 5th May, 2018 have already been filled, the respondents shall create supernumerary posts for accommodating both these candidates. The appointment of the appellant herein and R3 – Shri Amit Yadav shall take effect from the date of their joining.”

Advocate Rahul Bajaj represented the Appellant, while ASG Archana Pathak Dave represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

In the year 2018, the second respondent - Staff Selection Commission initiated a process to fill various Group ‘B’ and Group ‘C’ posts in different Ministries/Departments/Organisations under the Government of India. Pursuant to the tentative list of vacancies determined on December 27, 2019, the Common Graduate Level Examination-20183 vacancies were notified, wherein two vacancies were earmarked for the post of ‘Auditor’ in the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India under the ‘Other PwD’ category. The third respondent, Amit Yadav, was an aspirant, and he applied under the category of ‘Persons with Disabilities - Other’ as well as under the Other Backward Class category in the said examination.

He was recommended for appointment to the post, but the CAG declared a State/Office Allocation List indicating that the dossiers of certain candidates, including that of Yadav, were being returned to the SSC on the grounds that the post of ‘Auditor’ had been identified as not suitable for Persons with benchmark disabilities suffering from ‘mental illness’. The rejection of his candidature was thereafter formally communicated to him by a letter dated September 30, 2021. Yadav submitted a detailed representation to the SSC and approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi Bench, seeking appointment under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The Tribunal directed the respondent CAG to constitute a Medical Board for assessing his fitness and offer an appointment if he was found fit.

The appellant, being a PwD candidate placed at par with Yadav, claimed to be meritorious and belonging to the Scheduled Caste category suffering from Specific Learning Disability (SLD) of mixed scholastic skills, assessed at more than 40%, thereby falling under Category ‘D’ benchmark disabilities. He filed an application before the High Court asserting that he assailed the very rejection letter dated September 30, 2021, by filing an application before the CAT, which was pending consideration. He thus apprehended that the disposal of the petition by the High Court might have an adverse bearing on his pending original application before the CAT. This application was allowed. Pursuant to the writ petition having been allowed by the High Court, the appellant approached the Court by way of an application seeking permission to file the special leave petition.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the submissions of the parties, the Bench held that the appellant could be considered for appointment in the appropriate category in light of the Gazette Notification dated January 4, 2021, issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, DEPwD (Divyangjan). As per the Notification, the Central Government has notified the gist of the report, and the list of Central Government posts in Group A, B, C and D identified as suitable for persons with benchmark disabilities. This list supersedes the list of posts for Groups ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ notified through notification No. 16-15/2010-DD-III dated July 29, 2013.

Referring to the affidavit filed by respondent CAG, the Bench noted that there remained no impediment whatsoever for accommodating the appellant as well as the respondent Amit Yadav, against Group ‘C’ posts which have been identified as suitable to their disabilities. It was mentioned in the CAG’s affidavit that it was ready and willing to accommodate the appellant and the third Respondent in Group C posts identified as suitable. The only reservation expressed in the affidavit was that these appointments could be considered only after the recommendation from the respondent Staff Selection Commission (SSC) and receipt of the dossiers of the candidates.

Thus, the Bench disposed of the appeal by directing the respondent SSC to forthwith and not later than within a period of two weeks, forward the dossiers of the appellant and the respondent Amit Yadav to CAG.

Cause Title: Sudhanshu Kardam v. Comptroller and Auditor General of India (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 232)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Rahul Bajaj, Sarah, AOR Ayyam Perumal Karthik M., Advocate Kathiravan N

Respondent: ASG Archana Pathak Dave, Advocates Vaibhav Dwivedi, Abhishek Jain, Ishaan Sharma, Madhav Sinhal, Kamal Digpaul, Harshita Choubey, Mahendra Kumawat, AOR Amrish Kumar

Click here to read/download Order