Introduction:

In the case of Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) And Ors. vs. Sumit (W.P.(C) 2238/2025, CM APPL. 10455/2025 & CM APPL. 10456/2025), the Delhi High Court upheld the principle of reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act, 2016. The case revolved around an orthopedically disabled candidate who was denied an exemption from the typewriting test required for selection in the DSSSB Grade IV recruitment. The Court, in alignment with Supreme Court precedents, underscored that the judicial approach in cases involving differently-abled candidates must be qualitatively distinct from that applied to able-bodied candidates, reinforcing the necessity of a liberal and inclusive interpretation of the law.

Arguments:

Petitioner (DSSSB):

DSSSB contended that the respondent was ineligible for exemption from the typewriting test since he failed to submit his disability certificate at the time of examination. The board argued that the exemption policy was contingent on prior verification of disability status. Furthermore, DSSSB maintained that the respondent’s challenge arose only after the test results were declared, thereby undermining the integrity of the selection process. The petitioner emphasized the need to maintain procedural discipline in public recruitment to ensure fairness among all candidates.

Respondent (Sumit):

The respondent, suffering from a 63% orthopaedic disability, asserted that he had a valid disability certificate issued by a competent authority. He argued that the rejection of his exemption request was contrary to the principles of reasonable accommodation under the RPWD Act, which mandates adjustments to ensure equal participation of persons with disabilities. The respondent also relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Vikash Kumar v. UPSC and Rajive Raturi v. Union of India, which advocate for a liberal and disability-friendly approach by authorities in granting accommodations. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) had already ruled in his favour, and he sought judicial affirmation of the same.

Court’s Judgment:

The Delhi High Court, comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul, rejected DSSSB’s petition and upheld the CAT’s order granting exemption to the respondent. The Court observed that the RPWD Act envisions a jurisprudential shift toward inclusivity, requiring courts to adopt a lenient and accommodating approach in cases involving persons with disabilities. The Court stressed that the insistence on procedural rigidity could thwart the legislative intent behind reasonable accommodation provisions. Referring to Vikash Kumar v. UPSC, the Court reaffirmed that authorities must adopt a relief-oriented stance instead of an obstructive one. Similarly, the judgment in Rajive Raturi v. Union of India was cited to emphasize that the State must facilitate equal participation of persons with disabilities through systemic accommodations. The Court clarified that while procedural safeguards are necessary to prevent misuse, they cannot be implemented in a manner that obstructs the rights of eligible candidates. Given the respondent’s valid disability certificate and the overarching intent of the RPWD Act, the Court ruled that his exemption from the typewriting test was justified. However, it cautioned that this ruling should not be misinterpreted as an overarching exemption from procedural requirements in all cases. The petition was accordingly dismissed.