Delhi High Court | Rights Under RPwD Act Not Confined to Benchmark Disabilities | ONGC Must Consider Candidate With 17% Hearing Impairment for Appointment
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Renu Bhatnagar set aside the cancellation of an appointment and directed the respondent corporation to consider the appellant for employment as Assistant Executive Engineer (Instrumentation). The Bench held that the appellant, who was declared medically unfit due to a 17% hearing impairment, should be considered for appointment against a vacancy that would otherwise have been filled by an unreserved category candidate due to the non-availability of a person with benchmark disability. The Court directed the respondent corporation to complete the process within four weeks, further clarifying that if appointed, the appellant would gain seniority and benefits only prospectively from the date of such appointment.
The case originated from the recruitment process initiated by a public sector undertaking through Advertisement No. 2/2021 (R&P) for Graduate Trainees in Engineering and Geo-Sciences disciplines at E1 level through GATE 2020. The appellant had appeared in the GATE Instrumentation Engineering Paper, 2020, securing marks sufficient to receive a provisional offer of appointment as Assistant Executive Engineer (Instrumentation).
Previously, the appellant had faced disqualification in another recruitment process conducted by the National Aluminium Company Limited (NALCO), where he was declared medically unfit due to a hearing impairment detected during a pre-employment medical examination. A subsequent audiogram confirmed only a 17% hearing impairment, which did not qualify him for a benchmark disability certificate under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
The appellant later received a provisional appointment offer from the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC). Anticipating a repeat of his earlier disqualification, he filed a complaint with the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). ONGC subsequently declared him medically unfit for the post on account of “Profound Sensorineural Hearing Loss” in the right ear and cancelled the appointment. The NHRC closed the case, stating that issues concerning persons with less than 40% disability required either a policy framework or adjudication by an appropriate court.
The appellant approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, which disposed of his petition while granting liberty to approach the High Court. Thereafter, he filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court, which was dismissed by a Single Judge on the ground that ONGC had acted in compliance with statutory rules. The Single Judge also noted that the court could not direct the corporation to frame guidelines for employment of candidates with hearing loss of less than 40%.
Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Division Bench. He appeared in person and was also assisted by Mr. Ankur Chhibber, appointed as Amicus Curiae. It was contended that the appellant was placed in a disadvantageous position: being 17% hearing impaired, he could not avail reservation under benchmark disability, while also being disqualified from unreserved category employment. Counsel argued that under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, reasonable accommodation should extend to all persons with disability, not only those with benchmark disability.
It was submitted that the recruitment advertisement had provided for fourteen unreserved and nine benchmark disability reserved posts. Since none of the benchmark disability posts were filled, the carry forward rules in the advertisement permitted these to be filled by unreserved category candidates. It was argued that in such a scenario, the appellant should have been considered against such vacancies, rather than being disqualified.
The appellant also submitted that he disclosed his disability to the respondents after becoming aware of it during the earlier recruitment process with NALCO. He contended that his disability did not prevent him from performing the duties of the post, a fact acknowledged even during the NHRC proceedings.
On behalf of the respondents, the Additional Solicitor General submitted that the appellant voluntarily participated in the process under the unreserved category with full knowledge of the medical standards prescribed. It was contended that Clause VII(e)(4)(i) of the ONGC Medical Examination of Employees Rules, 1996, explicitly rendered candidates with bilateral nerve deafness as unfit for all categories, justifying the cancellation. The respondents further argued that reasonable accommodation cannot override mandatory medical standards prescribed for safety-sensitive posts. They also claimed that the appellant concealed his disability when applying.
The respondents relied on precedent to argue that once a candidate voluntarily participates in a process, they are estopped from challenging it. They also stated that while reservation for benchmark disabilities was made under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, persons with partial disabilities such as the appellant could not claim rights beyond what the statute expressly granted.
The Division Bench recorded that the recruitment advertisement reserved nine posts for persons with benchmark disabilities, including persons with hearing impairment. These posts remained unfilled. Under Section 34(2) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, as also reflected in the advertisement, such unfilled posts were to be carried forward, and if no suitable candidate was available, could eventually be filled by candidates other than persons with disabilities.
The Bench observed: “In our view, this is a vital fact which has been lost sight of by the learned Single Judge in its Impugned Judgment.”
The Court noted that while benchmark disability under Section 2(r) entitled persons to certain reservations and benefits, the broader definition of persons with disability under Section 2(s) conferred rights to equality, dignity, and non-discrimination. It stated: “Conflating the rights and entitlements which inhere in persons with disabilities with the notion of benchmark disabilities does disservice to the salutary purpose underlying the enactment of the 2016 RPwD Act.”
The Court further recorded that Section 3 mandated equality and non-discrimination for all persons with disabilities, and Section 20 prohibited government establishments from discriminating in matters of employment. It noted: “To give effect to the mandate of Section 3 and Section 20, it would be in the fitness of things that the post which has been reserved for PwBD, instead of being surrendered to an unreserved category candidate, is given to a PwD, like the appellant.”
Rejecting the respondent’s argument regarding medical standards, the Bench observed: “The Advertisement No. 2/2021 (R&P) itself identifies the post to be fit for person with PwBD of hearing impairment, which means that for a person who has more than 40% of such disability. It cannot, therefore, be accepted that a person with 17% of hearing disability cannot hold such post.”
On the allegation of concealment, the Bench accepted the appellant’s explanation: “We, therefore, are of opinion that the appellant cannot be accused of concealing information for applying for recruitment.”
The Court also referred to judicial precedents, including Vikash Kumar v. UPSC, Avni Prakash v. NTA, and Mohamed Ibrahim v. TANGEDCO, to hold that reasonable accommodation extended to all persons with disabilities, not just those with benchmark disability.
Having set aside the judgment of the Single Judge, the Division Bench issued directions. It held: “The letter dated 06.12.2022 issued by the respondent no.1 cancelling the candidature of the appellant for the post of AEE (Instrumentation), is also set aside.”
The Court further directed: “The respondent no.1 is directed to consider the appellant as a qualified unreserved category candidate against a post which would otherwise have been unreserved due to non-availability of PwBD candidate in the subject Advertisement, and if found fit on other parameters, except of him not meeting the 40% benchmark disability or failing to meet the medical standards, to offer him employment as a AEE (Instrumentation).”
It also clarified the prospective nature of benefits: “In case the appellant is offered appointment as AEE (Instrumentation) by the respondent no.1, the appellant shall gain his seniority and other benefits only from the date of his appointment and not retrospectively.”
Finally, the Court directed: “The above exercise must be completed by the respondent no.1 within a period of four weeks from today.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) along with the appellant in person
For the Respondents: Mr. Chetan Sharma, Additional Solicitor General with Mr. Vikramaditya, Mr. Sidhant Kumar, Mr. Om Batra, Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. R.V. Prabha, Mr. Vinay Yadav, Mr. Naman and Mr. Shubham Sharma, Advocates; Mr. Atul Krishna, Senior Panel Counsel with Mr. Gokul Sharma, Government Pleader
Case Title: Ashwin Murli v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:7544-DB
Case Number: LPA 754/2023 & CM APPLs. 59983-84/2023
Bench: Justice Navin Chawla, Justice Renu Bhatnagar
