Prioritising Grievances of Persons with Disabilities and Time-bound Decisions on Community Certificate Appeals: Commentary on C. Somasundaram v. Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board & Ors.

Prioritising Grievances of Persons with Disabilities and Time-bound Decisions on Community Certificate Appeals: Commentary on C. Somasundaram v. Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board & Ors.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background and Parties

The judgment in C. Somasundaram v. The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board & Ors., W.P. No. 47712 of 2025, decided on 08.12.2025 by the Madras High Court (Coram: Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan), is a significant articulation of the State’s constitutional and statutory obligations towards persons with disabilities in the context of administrative delays.

The petitioner, C. Somasundaram, is:

  • a person with visual disability (40% visual impairment); and
  • a candidate claiming to belong to the Kurumans Scheduled Tribe (ST) community.

He sought issuance of a community certificate declaring that he and his three daughters belong to the Kurumans (ST) community. His claim was supported by community certificates already issued to his father’s own brothers’ sons (cousins), namely J. Tamilvanan and J. Kalaiarasan.

On the public employment side, the petitioner had applied pursuant to Teachers Recruitment Board (TRB) Notification No. 02/2025 dated 10.07.2025 for the posts of:

  • Post Graduate Assistant,
  • Physical Director Grade I, and
  • Computer Instructor Grade I

in the Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Educational Service. He sought consideration against an ST backlog vacancy combined with disability reservation, specifically the ST CAT 1 [Blindness and Low Vision – 1% reservation] slot.

1.2. Administrative History

The sequence is crucial:

  1. The petitioner applied to the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) (3rd respondent) for an ST community certificate.
  2. The RDO rejected his application on 21.12.2022.
  3. He filed an appeal before the District Collector, Tirupattur (2nd respondent) on 10.01.2023.
  4. That appeal remained undecided for nearly three years by the time the writ petition was heard.
  5. Meanwhile, the TRB recruitment process had reached the stage of certificate verification scheduled for 09.12.2025.

1.3. Reliefs Sought in the Writ Petition

The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution prayed for:

  1. Mandamus directing the Collector (2nd respondent) to dispose of the appeal dated 10.01.2023 on the rejection of his and his daughters’ ST community certificates, relying upon:
    • earlier ST community certificates issued to his paternal cousins.
  2. A direction to the TRB (1st respondent) to:
    • permit the petitioner to participate in the certificate verification on 09.12.2025 at 1.30 pm; and
    • keep one post vacant under the ST CAT 1 (Blindness and Low Vision 1%) reservation in case the process continues.

Thus, the petition sat at the intersection of:

  • Community certificate adjudication,
  • Reservation for Scheduled Tribes,
  • Reservation and rights of persons with disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (“RPwD Act”), and
  • Timely administrative action in matters affecting fundamental livelihoods (public employment).

2. Summary of the Judgment

2.1. Core Directions

The Madras High Court did not decide the petitioner’s entitlement to an ST community certificate. Instead, it focused on the administrative delay and the special protection owed to persons with disabilities. The Court held:

  1. The Collector, Tirupattur (2nd respondent) is directed to decide the pending appeal:
    • “one way or the other, on its own merits”,
    • within 30 days from receipt of the Court’s order.
  2. As regards the prayer to keep a post vacant in the TRB recruitment:
    • The Court declined to order keeping the post vacant.
    • Instead, it held that if the petitioner’s appeal is allowed (i.e., he is found ST) and he has secured higher marks than the candidate appointed against the relevant solitary reserved vacancy, he is at liberty to:
      • file appropriate proceedings challenging the selection of that candidate.
  3. Going beyond the individual case, the Court issued a systemic direction:
    • The Chief Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu is directed to:
      • issue a circular within one month,
      • directing all State Government departments to ensure that appeals, representations, and applications by persons with disabilities are decided “betimes”—i.e., expeditiously and, by implication, on priority.
  4. The writ petition is formally disposed of, but:
    • the Registry is directed to relist the matter on 19.01.2026:
      • to verify compliance with the directions, and
      • to place the circular on record.

2.2. Emphasis on Disability Rights

The Court grounded its directions in:

  • Section 2(c) of the RPwD Act, 2016, defining “barrier” as including communicational, attitudinal, institutional and other factors that hinder full participation of persons with disabilities; and
  • Article 41 of the Constitution (Directive Principles), read in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajive Raturi v. Union of India, (2018) 2 SCC 413.

From these, the Court concluded that:

  • Administrative delay in deciding grievances of persons with disabilities itself becomes a barrier to their full and equal participation.
  • The State and its authorities must therefore act with a greater degree of sensitivity and empathy and accord such matters precedence over others.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1. Issues Before the Court

The principal issues can be framed as:

  1. Whether the High Court should issue a time-bound mandamus to the Collector to decide a long-pending appeal regarding ST community certificate, especially where the appellant is a person with disability whose employment prospects are directly affected.
  2. Whether the Court should grant interim or protective relief against the ongoing recruitment process, either by:
    • directing permission to participate in certificate verification; or
    • directing that a post be kept vacant under the relevant ST-disability reserved category.
  3. Whether, and to what extent, the Court can issue general, forward-looking directions to the State Government to institutionalise priority handling of grievances of persons with disabilities.

3.2. Precedents and Legal Materials Considered

3.2.1. Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – Section 2(c)

The Court extracted and relied upon Section 2(c) of the RPwD Act:

“2(c) ‘barrier’ means any factor including communicational, cultural, economic, environmental, institutional, political, social, attitudinal or structural factors which hampers the full and effective participation of persons with disabilities in society;”

By invoking this provision, the Court made a subtle but impactful move:

  • It treated administrative delay, particularly in decisions crucial for livelihood, as an institutional and attitudinal barrier.
  • Since the RPwD Act is rights-based, not merely welfare oriented, the State’s obligation is not limited to physical accessibility; it extends to the removal of procedural and attitudinal obstacles in administration.

3.2.2. Article 41 and Directive Principles

The Court highlighted Article 41 of the Constitution, which directs the State to make “effective provision” for securing the right to work, education, and public assistance in case of undeserved want, including for persons with disabilities. Though Directive Principles are non-justiciable, the Court reaffirmed the established doctrine that:

  • Directive Principles must guide State policy and interpretation of statutes, particularly rights-based welfare legislation.
  • In areas like disability rights, Article 41 reinforces statutory obligations under the RPwD Act.

3.2.3. Rajive Raturi v. Union of India, (2018) 2 SCC 413

The Court quoted the Supreme Court’s observations in Rajive Raturi, a landmark case on the rights of visually impaired persons, which emphasised:

  • The positive obligation of the State to make specific provisions for disabled persons.
  • The constitutional underpinning for disability rights, including reference to the 73rd and 74th Amendments (local self-government and inclusion of weaker sections, including disabled persons) and Article 41.

The passage reproduced underscores:

  • That the State must not remain passive; it must proactively secure the rights and welfare of persons with disabilities;
  • That disability rights are not marginal; they are anchored in the broader constitutional vision of social justice and welfare of the people.

By citing Rajive Raturi, the Madras High Court aligns its reasoning with the Supreme Court’s transformative approach: viewing disability rights as integral to constitutional equality, dignity and participation, not merely as a matter of charity or discretion.

3.3. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

3.3.1. From Routine Mandamus to Disability-Sensitive Adjudication

The Court candidly observed:

“Had it been any other case, this court would have disposed of the same with a direction to the authority concerned to consider the appeal within a stipulated period.”

This is crucial. It signals that:

  • In ordinary service or administrative matters involving delays, the usual practice is to direct disposal within a reasonable time, often without systemic directions.
  • However, because the petitioner is a person with disability, the Court felt compelled to:
    • examine the broader statutory and constitutional framework, and
    • craft stronger, more systemic relief.

This distinction itself is a key doctrinal development: it recognises that disability is a constitutionally and statutorily recognised axis of vulnerability that warrants heightened judicial sensitivity and enhanced remedial response.

3.3.2. Delay as a “Barrier” under the RPwD Act

Having set out the definition of “barrier” under Section 2(c) RPwD Act, the Court reasoned that:

  • The “barriers” contemplated by the Act are not confined to physical obstacles.
  • Institutional and attitudinal barriers are explicitly included.
  • Here, the nearly three-year delay in deciding the petitioner’s appeal is:
    • not only an instance of bureaucratic inaction;
    • but a legally cognisable barrier, as it hampers:
      • the petitioner’s equal opportunity to compete for a reserved post;
      • his full and effective participation in society, particularly in public employment.

The Act obliges the “appropriate government” to remove such barriers. Reading this into the facts, the Court concluded that the State authorities should have:

  • acted swiftly and sensitively,
  • and treated his appeal with priority, particularly because public recruitment timelines were in play.

3.3.3. Constitutional and Statutory Mandate: Sensitivity, Empathy, and Precedence

The Court then linked the statutory obligations with the constitutional framework:

“When such is the constitutional as well as statutory mandate, the State Government is expected to act in furtherance of such objective and while considering the applications, or grievances, or appeals of persons with disabilities, the authorities of the State Government should act with greater degree of sensitivity and empathy than in other cases. The cases of persons with disabilities should be given precedence…”

Key elements of this reasoning:

  • Constitution + Statute: The Court does not treat the RPwD Act in isolation, but as implementing and concretising the constitutional commitment embodied particularly in Article 41, and, by implication, Articles 14 and 21.
  • Standard of Conduct: The Court articulates a normative standard for administrative authorities:
    • “greater degree of sensitivity and empathy”;
    • “precedence” in handling cases involving persons with disabilities;
    • active avoidance of “cunctation” (undue delay).
  • Non-Discrimination Reframed: Where a rigidly “equal” approach to timelines (treating all matters identically) effectively disadvantages persons with disabilities, the Court insists on substantive equality—their matters must be decided earlier, not merely in the same ordinary course.

3.3.4. Time-Bound Mandamus to Decide the Appeal

Against this backdrop, the direction that the Collector must decide the appeal within 30 days is not a mere routine order:

  • It is explicitly grounded in the rights of persons with disabilities.
  • It transforms a generic administrative timeline into an expression of rights-based urgency.

Importantly:

  • The Court does not prejudge the merits of the appeal: it must be decided “one way or the other, on its own merits.”
  • Thus, the order steers clear of encroaching on the Collector’s fact-finding jurisdiction regarding ST status but insists on timely exercise of that jurisdiction.

3.3.5. Relief Concerning the TRB Recruitment

The petitioner’s prayers in relation to the recruitment process were:

  • permission to participate in certificate verification; and
  • direction to keep a post vacant under the ST CAT 1 (blindness/low vision) quota.

The Court took a cautious approach:

  • It expressly declined to freeze the recruitment by keeping a post vacant.
  • Instead, it adopted a post facto remedial mechanism:
    • If the petitioner ultimately succeeds in his appeal and if the selected candidate for the concerned solitary reserved post has lesser marks, the petitioner can:
      • challenge that selection by appropriate legal proceedings.

This achieves a balance:

  • It minimises disruption to ongoing administrative processes (recruitment need not be halted);
  • while preserving the petitioner’s right to a fair chance if he subsequently satisfies the eligibility condition (proof of ST status).

However:

  • The judgment is silent on directing TRB to allow his participation in the certificate verification on 09.12.2025, presumably because:
    • his community status had not yet been adjudicated in his favour; and
    • participation without an ST certificate might not be meaningful within the ST ST–PWD slot.

3.3.6. Systemic Direction to the Chief Secretary

Perhaps the most far-reaching aspect is the direction to the Chief Secretary:

“…to issue necessary circular within one month directing all the departments of the State Government to ensure that whenever any appeal, or representation, or application is submitted by persons with disabilities, every endeavour is made to decide the same betimes.”

This direction:

  • Transforms an individual writ petition into an occasion for systemic reform.
  • Requires the highest administrative authority in the State to:
    • issue a uniform directive across departments; and
    • institutionalise priority, time-bound handling of grievances of persons with disabilities.
  • Is reinforced by the Court’s decision to:
    • keep the matter pending for reporting compliance on 19.01.2026.

This is a clear message: compliance is not symbolic; the Court intends to monitor whether the State translates this rights-based directive into actual administrative practice.

3.4. Impact and Implications

3.4.1. On Administrative Authorities and Departmental Practice

The judgment effectively establishes that:

  • All State departments in Tamil Nadu must:
    • identify appeals, representations, and applications filed by persons with disabilities (or on their behalf);
    • institutionalise priority handling for such matters; and
    • decide them expeditiously, avoiding unexplained or prolonged delays.
  • Failure to do so may:
    • constitute breach of the RPwD Act as interpreted; and
    • invite judicial intervention by way of writs, including systemic directions and possible contempt proceedings if circulars or directions are not implemented.

In practical terms, one can expect:

  • Creation of internal protocols within departments to flag and fast-track PWD-related files.
  • Potential introduction of specific timelines or expedition norms in departmental standing orders, especially for:
    • community certificate appeals involving PWD;
    • service-related grievances of PWD employees or applicants;
    • benefit/entitlement claims under disability-related schemes.

3.4.2. On Community Certificate Jurisprudence

While the Court did not delve into the merits of the ST claim, the judgment has two notable implications:

  • Time is of the essence in community certificate matters, especially when:
    • public recruitment processes are underway; and
    • the candidate is a person with disability seeking reservation both under caste/tribe and disability categories.
  • Where delays in deciding community certificates or appeals neutralise the practical benefit of reservations (e.g., the recruitment concludes before the certificate is granted), such delays can be re-characterised as rights violations, not mere administrative inefficiencies.

This creates an expectation that:

  • Collectors and higher authorities must actively track such appeals and avoid indefinite pendency.
  • Persons with disabilities whose caste/community issues are pending will have stronger grounds to seek judicial directions for time-bound disposal.

3.4.3. On Public Recruitment and Reservations

For public service commissions and recruitment boards (like TRB), the decision signals:

  • They must be prepared for post-recruitment challenges where:
    • a person with disability secures recognition of a reserved status (e.g., ST) after the recruitment process; and
    • can demonstrably show he/she had superior merit compared to the appointed candidate in the reserved slot.
  • While the Court declined to keep posts vacant as a matter of course, it:
    • implicitly recognises the possibility of reopening or unsettling finalized appointments in narrow circumstances to vindicate the rights of a more meritorious PWD candidate.

This incentivises:

  • Closer coordination between recruitment authorities and community-certificate-appellate authorities.
  • Efforts to synchronise timelines so that community status and disability status are finally settled before selection is made.

3.4.4. On Disability Rights Jurisprudence

Conceptually, the decision contributes to disability jurisprudence in three ways:

  1. Broadening the notion of “accessibility”:
    • From physical and infrastructural access to include procedural access—timely handling of cases that affect livelihood and participation.
  2. Substantive equality in procedure:
    • The Court’s insistence that PWD matters must be given precedence demonstrates that equal treatment sometimes requires differentiated, favourable treatment to counter structural disadvantages.
  3. Systemic, not just individual, remedies:
    • By directing a statewide circular and monitoring compliance, the Court underscores that disability rights cannot be protected through case-by-case relief alone; they demand institutional redesign.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

4.1. Writ of Mandamus

A writ of mandamus is an order issued by a High Court (or the Supreme Court) directing a public authority to perform a duty imposed by law. It is appropriate where:

  • a legal right of the petitioner exists, and
  • the public authority has a corresponding duty which it has failed to perform.

Here:

  • The petitioner had a legal right to have his appeal decided by the Collector.
  • The Collector had a duty to decide it within a reasonable time.
  • Mandamus was issued not to dictate the outcome of the appeal but to ensure performance of the duty to decide.

4.2. Community Certificate and ST Status

In Tamil Nadu (and across India), a community certificate is an official document declaring that a person belongs to a Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST), or Other Backward Class (OBC). It is:

  • essential to claim reservation benefits in education and public employment; and
  • often issued at the taluk or divisional level, with appeals to the Collector.

The Kurumans community is notified as a Scheduled Tribe in parts of Tamil Nadu. Thus, if the petitioner is ultimately recognised as Kurumans (ST), he becomes eligible for:

  • ST reservation in the recruitment;
  • and here, specifically, a combined benefit of ST + PWD (blindness/low vision) reservation.

4.3. Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

The RPwD Act, 2016 is India’s primary legislation implementing the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). Key relevant ideas:

  • It moves from a “charity/welfare” model to a rights-based model.
  • Section 2(c)’s definition of “barrier” makes clear that:
    • barriers can be physical (like inaccessible buildings),
    • but also institutional and attitudinal (like indifference, delay, procedural complexity).
  • Various provisions (such as Sections 16, 20 and related rules) recognise the right to:
    • non-discrimination in employment, and
    • equal opportunity in recruitment and promotion.

In this judgment, the Court uses Section 2(c) to argue that administrative delay is itself a barrier within the meaning of the Act.

4.4. Article 41 and Directive Principles

Article 41 of the Constitution is a Directive Principle of State Policy, stating that the State shall, within its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing:

  • the right to work;
  • the right to education; and
  • public assistance in cases of:
    • unemployment,
    • old age,
    • sickness,
    • disablement, and
    • other cases of undeserved want.

Though not enforceable in courts per se, Article 41:

  • guides interpretation of laws and governmental actions;
  • provides the philosophical foundation for disability-specific legislation like the RPwD Act;
  • is used by courts to strengthen the obligations of the State, as seen here.

4.5. “Barriers” and “Attitudinal Barriers”

Under the RPwD Act, “barriers” include:

  • Structural barriers: physical features like stairs without ramps, inaccessible public transport, etc.
  • Institutional barriers: rules, procedures or institutional habits that disadvantage PWD—e.g., complex forms, absence of assistive technology, delays in approvals.
  • Attitudinal barriers: prejudices, indifference or lack of empathy—e.g., not treating PWD grievances as urgent or important.

The Court’s condemnation of “cunctation” (prolonged delay) in dealing with the petitioner’s appeal is essentially a recognition that such delay is an institutional and attitudinal barrier prohibited by the RPwD Act.

5. Critical Observations and Evaluation

5.1. Strengths of the Judgment

  • Rights-Oriented Approach: The Court treats the petitioner not as a supplicant seeking administrative grace, but as a rights-holder entitled to:
    • timely adjudication of his appeal; and
    • freedom from administrative barriers that frustrate his statutory and constitutional rights.
  • Systemic Impact: By involving the Chief Secretary and mandating a statewide circular:
    • the judgment moves beyond ad hoc relief;
    • it seeks to reshape administrative culture around disability-related matters.
  • Balanced Approach to Recruitment:
    • The Court avoids freezing the recruitment process (which affects many other candidates and administrative needs),
    • yet safeguards the petitioner’s future rights through the possibility of a targeted challenge if his merit is superior.
  • Integration of Constitutional and Statutory Norms:
    • The judgment harmoniously weaves Article 41, the RPwD Act, and Rajive Raturi, reinforcing the view that disability rights have a constitutional backbone.

5.2. Areas of Ambiguity or Potential Limitation

  • No Explicit Relief for Certificate Verification Participation:
    • While the Court addressed the “vacant post” issue, it did not clearly direct TRB to allow participation in the certificate verification;
    • the petitioner may, in practice, still miss the ongoing recruitment cycle.
  • Scope of “betimes”:
    • The direction to decide matters “betimes” is normatively strong but not quantified (e.g., 30 days, 60 days) for all departments.
    • This leaves some room for divergent departmental interpretations until further clarification or detailed circulars emerge.
  • Enforcement of the Circular:
    • The judgment requires issuance of a circular and lists the case for compliance, but:
      • the long-term enforcement of that circular in daily administrative practice will depend on political will, bureaucratic leadership, and further judicial oversight if necessary.

6. Conclusion

This decision in C. Somasundaram v. Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board & Ors. is more than a routine direction to dispose of a pending appeal. It represents a clear judicial insistence that:

  • For persons with disabilities, delay is not a neutral administrative phenomenon; it is a legally cognisable barrier under the RPwD Act.
  • The State’s obligations under Article 41 and the RPwD Act require:
    • priority, sensitivity, and empathy in processing their grievances,
    • and timely decisions on appeals, representations, and applications.
  • Courts can justifiably issue systemic directions—such as mandatory statewide circulars—to ensure disability-related matters are handled expeditiously across all departments.

Normatively, the judgment advances the jurisprudence of substantive equality for persons with disabilities, shifting the focus from mere non-discrimination to active removal of barriers, including procedural and attitudinal ones. Practically, it puts administrative authorities on notice that:

  • long, unexplained delays in dealing with PWD cases are no longer tolerable; and
  • they must put in place mechanisms to identify and fast-track such matters.

In the broader legal landscape, this judgment is likely to serve as a persuasive precedent for:

  • other High Courts examining administrative delays affecting persons with disabilities; and
  • litigants seeking time-bound, priority disposal orders in disability-related grievances, including those connected with community certificates and public employment.

The case thus stands as an important step in operationalising the promise of the RPwD Act and the Constitution: that persons with disabilities must not only have formal rights on paper, but also a timely, effective pathway to realise those rights in practice.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Madras High Court

Judge(s)

Honourable The CHIEF JUSTICE

Advocates

Comments