Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act | Delhi High Court : Seeing Not Limited to Vision; Blind Candidates Cannot Be Excluded from Identified Posts If Able to Perceive and Perform Duties
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi, Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul held that a blind candidate cannot be excluded from recruitment if he can effectively perceive and perform the duties attached to the post. The Court observed that once a post has been identified by the Committee under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 as suitable for persons who are blind or have low vision, such candidates cannot be disqualified merely for lack of physical sight. Directing the Airports Authority of India to reassess visually impaired applicants for Junior Executive posts without medical testing, the Bench emphasized that suitability must be evaluated in an enabling environment with assistive aids, upholding inclusion and equality in public employment.
The petitions were filed by visually impaired candidates who applied for recruitment to posts of Junior Executive (Law, Common Cadre, and Finance) under Advertisement No. 03/2023 issued by the Airports Authority of India (AAI). The advertisement, issued pursuant to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPWD) notification dated 4 January 2021, identified these posts as suitable for persons who are blind or have low vision. The petitioners, who are blind, participated in the selection process and were provisionally selected based on the Computer-Based Test results.
During document verification, AAI withheld their selection and subsequently informed them that they did not meet the “functional requirements” for the post, which included the ability to “see,” as specified in the advertisement. Following medical assessments conducted by the designated hospital, the petitioners were declared ineligible on the ground that they could not perform work by seeing. Their candidatures were then cancelled under Note 8 of the 2021 notification, which authorized verification of a candidate’s suitability in terms of functional requirements before appointment.
The petitioners challenged the cancellation and the validity of Note 8, asserting that once a post is identified as suitable for blind or low-vision candidates, further medical evaluation regarding functional capability is impermissible. They argued that such assessment contradicts the statutory process of identification conducted under Section 33 of the Disabilities Act and the principle of reasonable accommodation recognized under law. They also relied on departmental guidelines that require medical examination only to confirm general fitness, not to assess disability-related suitability.
AAI contended that functional requirements were integral to job performance and that medical evaluation was necessary to determine a candidate’s ability to fulfill those functions. The Union of India maintained that blindness does not inherently disqualify a candidate if duties can be performed with assistive aids.
The Bench examined the interplay between identification under Section 33 and reservation under Section 34 of the RPwD Act and the permissibility of functional requirements. It recorded that there was no dispute that 1% of vacancies in each identified post under Advertisement 03/2023 stood reserved for blind and low-vision candidates and that the 4 January 2021 notification and the advertisement identified blindness and low vision as eligible categories for Junior Executive (Law).
The Court stated: “There is no proscription, in the RPWD Act, against stipulating functional requirements. We, in fact, are of the opinion that the stipulation of the suitable category of benchmark disability, and the functional requirements for a particular post cannot be dichotomised.” It further recorded: “The only requirement, in law, according to us, is that the stipulation of functional requirement has to take place at the stage of identification of the posts, by the statutory Committee under Section 33.” The Court held: “We, therefore, hold that it was open to the DEPWD, in the Notification dated 4 January 2021, to stipulate functional requirements… and only candidates who satisfied the said functional requirements would be entitled to appointment against the corresponding posts.”
The Bench recorded: “We see no reason to do so.” It explained: “Once we have held that candidates who possess the identified categories of disability against any particular post would also have to satisfy the functional requirements of the post, it is apparent that the exercise of determination as to whether a particular candidate does, or does not, satisfy the functional requirement of the post, has to be left to the concerned selecting authority… Note 8 says no more.”
“The concept of ‘seeing’, inasmuch as it is stipulated, in the DEPWD Notification as well as in the Advertisement, as a functional attribute, cannot be restricted to the ocular functionality of the eye. If, therefore, despite not being possessed of the ocular ability… a candidate is nonetheless able to perceive what is before him, to the extent it is necessary to discharge the function of JE (Law), he has to be regarded as being possessed of the functional attribute of ‘sight’.”
The Bench stated: “Excluding of such persons on the basis of a medical examination is, clearly and categorically, ruled out.” Citing the Supreme Court’s decision, it quoted: “the assessment of a person’s suitability, capacity and capability is not to be tested and measured by medical or clinical assessment… but must be assessed after providing reasonable accommodation and an enabling atmosphere.” The Court held that any such attempt to assess via medical examination would be “contemptuous of the law declared by the Supreme Court.”
The Bench further recorded: “The suitability of the incumbent [must be considered] ‘with appropriate software, aids and appliances support as per needs’… Not only must all such reasonable accommodation be extended to the candidate; the atmosphere in which he is assessed must also be an enabling atmosphere.” It added: “At all times, the attempt must be towards inclusivity, and not exclusion.”
The Court stated: “The issue involved is enforcement of the rights of persons with disabilities… There can be no estoppel against enforcement of such rights.” It concluded that the manner in which the petitioner had been declared unsuitable was “clearly unsustainable in law.”
The Division Bench recorded: “The challenge to Note 8 in the DEPWD Notification dated 4 January 2021 is rejected. The rejection of the petitioners’ candidature for the posts to which they aspire, consequent on Advertisement 03/2023, is quashed and set aside. The functional suitability of the petitioners for the posts would be re-assessed. The reassessment would not be undertaken by medical means. It would strictly abide by the decision of the Supreme Court in In re. Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services and in this judgment.”
“We emphasize that the aim and attempt must be at ensuring that the petitioners are recruited, and not at excluding them from appointment. It is only if… any petitioner is found entirely unsuitable… that she, or he, can be disqualified from appointment. The re-assessment of the petitioners would take place within two weeks of pronouncement of this judgment. Petitioners who are found suitable would be offered appointment within four weeks thereof. They shall be entitled to be treated as appointed… along with continuity of service and all other benefits, except back wages.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. S.K. Rungta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Prashant Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Digvijay Rai, Standing Counsel with Mr. Archit Mishra, Advocate with Mr. Subhash Kumar, AGM (HR), Ms. Priyanka Rana, AM (HR), Mr. Yatinder Choudhary, Law Officer (Law) and Mr. Jayesh Bhargava, JE (Law) (AAI); Mr. Vinay Yadav, Senior Panel Counsel with Mr. Rahul Kumar Sharma, Government Pleader with Mr. Ansh Kalra, Ms. Kamna Behrani and Mr. Siddharth Gautam, Advocates; Ms. Nidhi Raman, Central Government Standing Counsel with Mr. Akash Mishra and Mr. Arnav Mittal, Advocates.
Case Title: Mudit Gupta v Airports Authority of India and Anr; Amit Kumar and Ors v Airports Authority of India; Deepak Arora and Anr v Airports Authority of India
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:9207-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 938/2025; W.P.(C) 61/2025; W.P.(C) 68/2025
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar; Justice Ajay Digpaul
