Failure To Consider ‘Reasonable Accommodation’ For Disabled Candidate Defeats RPwD Act: Delhi High Court

The High Court observed that a refusal based solely on this ground was manifestly arbitrary and ran contrary to constitutional values and statutory mandates protecting persons with disabilities.

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by the Police Department challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal directing reconsideration of the candidate’s compassionate appointment.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain, while rejecting the objections of the Police Department, held that “the rejection of his candidature on the sole ground that there was no vacancy for physically disabled persons, reflects a lack of awareness and sensitivity towards the principles of reasonable accommodation and inclusion”, stressing that “it defeats the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, which was promulgated to bring effect to the Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Background

The deceased government employee served in the Police Department and passed away in service, leaving behind his dependent family. His son, having 75% permanent physical disability and belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, applied for appointment under the compassionate appointment quota.

However, the claim was repeatedly rejected because there was no vacancy for the MTS post in the disabled quota, and the applicant could not secure a merit position compared to others.

The candidate challenged these rejections before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal directed the authorities to reconsider the claim strictly on its own merits and in keeping with the spirit of compassion.

Despite this, the Screening Committee reiterated the earlier stand and again rejected the application, prompting the candidate to approach the Tribunal for execution of the order. The Tribunal held that the rejection was unjustified and again ordered reconsideration, after which the department approached the High Court.

Court’s Observation

The Delhi High Court noted that the police authorities had thrice rejected the candidate’s claim solely due to an asserted lack of vacancies. The Court held that a compassionate appointment cannot be processed mechanically, particularly when the candidate belongs to multiple marginalised identities, a Scheduled Caste status and 75% permanent disability.

Quoting its own findings, the Court held that “when examined through the prism of intersectionality, it becomes evident that the respondent’s socially and economically disadvantaged background, being a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste community and further afflicted with seventy-five percent permanent physical disability.”

The Bench emphasised that, under such circumstances, rejection was manifestly arbitrary, contrary to fairness and good conscience, and violative of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, as "a holistic reading of the RPwD Act reveals that it seeks to operationalise the promise of equal opportunities to public employment as provided by the Constitution of India."

The Bench further relied on recent Supreme Court rulings describing the RPwD Act as a “super statute” and holding “the principle of reasonable accommodation is not a discretionary measure, but a fundamental right integral to achieving substantive equality for PwDs, forming part of the right to dignity as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

Conclusion

Holding the approach of the authorities to be arbitrary and lacking compassion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the Tribunal’s orders. The Screening Committee was directed to again reconsider the applicant’s claim and issue necessary orders within eight weeks.

Cause Title: Commissioner of Police & Ors v. Amit Kumar & Ors (Neutral Citation:2025:DHC:9374-DB)

Appearances

Petitioners: Akash Chatterjee, SPC

Click here to read/download Judgment