Accommodation of PwBD Candidates as per 04.01.2021 Identification Notification: SSC Duty to Forward Dossiers; CAG to Appoint Against Suitable Group ‘C’ Posts with Supernumerary Creation if Needed

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court of India, in SUDHANSHU KARDAM v. COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA AND ORS. (2026 INSC 232, decided on 12-03-2026), addressed the practical enforcement of reservation and suitability identification for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) in a central recruitment conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) through the Combined Graduate Level Examination-2018 (CGLE-2018).

The dispute arose after a PwBD candidate, Shri Amit Yadav (R3), recommended for the post of Auditor in the Indian Audit & Accounts Department under the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), had his dossier returned on the stated ground that the post of “Auditor” was not identified as suitable for PwBD with “mental illness”. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) directed constitution of a Medical Board and appointment if found fit; the Delhi High Court set aside CAT’s order, restoring the rejection communication dated 30-09-2021.

The appellant, Sudhanshu Kardam, also a PwD/PwBD candidate (Scheduled Caste; Specific Learning Disability), was impleaded before the High Court because he challenged the same communication and apprehended adverse impact on his pending CAT proceedings. Before the Supreme Court, the core question became one of administrative accommodation and implementation in light of a later statutory identification exercise: the Gazette Notification dated 04-01-2021 issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPwD), notifying posts identified as suitable under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act).

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by recording and operationalizing the CAG’s additional affidavit stating that, pursuant to the Notification dated 04-01-2021, certain Group ‘C’ posts (including Assistant (Audit) and Auditor-II) stood identified as suitable for PwBD categories including Specific Learning Disability and Mental Illness.

The Court held that there remained no impediment to accommodate both the appellant and R3 against such identified Group ‘C’ posts, and issued binding directions:

  • SSC was directed to forward the dossiers of the appellant and R3 to CAG within two weeks.
  • On receipt, CAG must duly consider them for appointment against suitable Group ‘C’ posts.
  • If the posts notified on 05-05-2018 are already filled, respondents must create supernumerary posts to accommodate both candidates.
  • Appointment would take effect from the date of joining.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The order does not cite any prior judicial precedents by case name. Instead, the Court’s resolution is anchored in: (i) the statutory architecture of the RPwD Act, 2016 (especially the identification mechanism under Section 33 as discussed in the Notification), and (ii) the executive identification notification dated 04-01-2021 that superseded the earlier 2013 list.

The Court’s approach is therefore best understood as a compliance-and-implementation ruling rather than a precedent-heavy adjudication. Its persuasive weight lies in the operational directions it issues to harmonize recruitment outcomes with the updated identification regime.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

Although styled as an “ORDER” and disposed without an extended merits discussion, the Court’s reasoning is clear from the sequence of steps it adopted:

  1. Identification lists are determinative for suitability: The dispute originally turned on whether the “Auditor” post was identified as suitable for certain PwBD categories. The Court foregrounded the 04-01-2021 Gazette Notification, which—issued under the RPwD framework—updated and superseded the prior list.
  2. Administrative alignment over adversarial adjudication: After hearing parties, the Court specifically sought instructions “with regard to accommodating” the candidates in light of the Notification. The CAG’s affidavit then acknowledged changed “rule position” and expressed willingness to accommodate in identified Group ‘C’ posts, subject to receipt of dossiers and recommendation details from SSC (the recruiting authority).
  3. Inter-agency duty to effectuate rights: The Court treated the dossier-transfer/recommendation step not as a bureaucratic dead-end but as a time-bound obligation and therefore directed SSC to act “forthwith” within two weeks.
  4. Effective relief through supernumerary posts: Recognizing that passage of time may have led to vacancies being filled, the Court ensured relief would not be defeated by fait accompli appointments, by directing creation of supernumerary posts if necessary. This is a significant remedial device to prevent the administration from relying on “no vacancy” as a defence where entitlement to accommodation is otherwise accepted.
  5. Prospective service effect: The Court specified appointments take effect from date of joining, implicitly declining to order back-wages/seniority from an earlier date, and thereby balancing equitable relief with administrative finality.

3.3 Impact

Even in a short dispositional order, the Court establishes a practical rule of administration in PwBD recruitments:

  • Updated identification notifications must be operationalized: Once a competent authority notifies posts as suitable for particular benchmark disabilities, departments should not continue to rely on outdated suitability positions.
  • Recruiter-employer coordination is judicially enforceable: SSC (recommending authority) and the user department (CAG/IA&AD) cannot pass responsibility back and forth; courts can impose timelines and compel dossier transfer.
  • “No vacancy” will not necessarily defeat accommodation: The direction to create supernumerary posts signals that where exclusion is found unjustified (or later acknowledged as rectifiable), courts may craft structural remedies rather than leaving candidates remediless due to administrative delay.
  • Shift from medical-fitness adjudication to identification-based accommodation: The CAT’s approach (medical board for “fitness”) was overtaken by the Supreme Court’s emphasis on post identification and administrative accommodation, suggesting that once a post is identified suitable for a disability category, the default administrative stance should be inclusion, not exclusion, subject to standard service rules.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

PwD vs PwBD (Persons with Benchmark Disabilities)
“Benchmark disability” generally refers to disabilities meeting the statutory threshold (commonly 40% or more) for specific entitlements such as reservation. The judgment uses “PwBD” in the context of eligibility under the RPwD Act’s reservation and identification regime.
Identification of posts as “suitable”
Under the RPwD framework (and earlier law), governments identify which posts can be performed by persons with particular disability categories. The 04-01-2021 Notification is central: it superseded the earlier 2013 list and reflected updated expert committee recommendations.
Dossier
The candidate’s official file (documents, verification records, recommendation particulars) transmitted by SSC to the appointing department for issuance of appointment. Without the dossier, the user department typically cannot complete appointment formalities.
Supernumerary post
A post created in addition to the sanctioned strength, usually to accommodate a specific person without displacing others. Here, it prevents the administration from denying appointment merely because the original advertised vacancies have been filled.
Impleadment/Intervention
A procedural mechanism allowing a person who may be affected by the outcome to be added as a party, ensuring their interests are heard. The appellant was impleaded before the High Court because the High Court’s decision could affect his pending CAT challenge.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s order in SUDHANSHU KARDAM v. COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA AND ORS. operationalizes the RPwD identification regime by compelling time-bound inter-agency action (SSC dossier forwarding) and ensuring effective accommodation (including supernumerary posts) once posts are identified suitable under the 04-01-2021 Notification. The decision’s significance lies less in doctrinal exposition and more in its concrete administrative rule: PwBD inclusion cannot be frustrated by bureaucratic sequencing or vacancy-closure when suitability has been notified and the appointing authority acknowledges the ability to accommodate.