Supreme Court Backs Disability Rights As CSR Obligation, Directs Coal India To Create Supernumerary Post For Candidate Denied Employment Due To Multiple Disabilities
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan held that disability rights in employment must be approached as a facet of corporate responsibility to respect human rights, and that workplace equality depends on meaningful inclusion and accommodation. The Court was hearing an appeal by a candidate who was denied appointment by a public sector employer after being found medically unfit because she had visual impairment along with another disability, despite having been selected for interview under the disability quota. Setting aside the High Court division bench order, the Court directed the employer to create a supernumerary post and provide a suitable desk-based role with appropriate assistive workplace arrangements, and requested her posting in the employer’s North Eastern unit.
The dispute arose from a recruitment advertisement issued in 2019 by a public sector undertaking for appointment of Management Trainees. The appellant applied under the Visually Handicapped category and was shortlisted for interview. She was subsequently called for document verification and Initial Medical Examination. During the medical examination, she was declared unfit on the ground that she suffered not only from visual disability but also from residual partial hemiparesis.
Aggrieved by the medical unfitness declaration, the appellant approached the High Court. The Single Judge examined the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and held that a public sector undertaking could not deny appointment merely because the candidate suffered from multiple disabilities. The Single Judge quashed the medical unfitness result and permitted the appellant to be considered in the next recruitment cycle from the stage of medical examination, while directing that one post be kept vacant.
The employer challenged this decision before the Division Bench, which set aside the Single Judge’s order on the ground that the recruitment panel had expired and that the interim order reserving a vacancy had been passed after expiry of the panel. The appellant thereafter approached the Supreme Court.
During the proceedings, the Supreme Court directed constitution of a medical board at AIIMS for fresh assessment of disability. The medical board assessed the appellant’s disability at 57 percent, exceeding the benchmark disability threshold.
The Court recorded that “the appellant at the first instance was wrongly denied her employment pursuant to the 2019 notification.” It noted that the High Court Single Judge had moulded relief in view of the lapse of time and observed that “the learned Single Judge moulded the relief in view of the passage of time and directed her to be considered from the IME stage for the 2023 recruitment.”
While examining the reasoning of the High Court Division Bench, the Court stated that “the Division Bench on facts was not justified in setting aside the judgment of the Single Judge merely because the panel had expired.” It further observed that the expiry of the recruitment panel could not operate to defeat substantive justice where denial of employment was not attributable to the candidate.
On the medical assessment, the Court noted that “according to the report, the appellant suffers 57% of disability, which is above the benchmark disability, i.e., 40%.” It recorded that “today the situation is, the report from AIIMS finds her with 57% disability, rendering her eligible for the appointment under the reserved quota.”
The Court addressed the concept of reasonable accommodation and observed that “reasonable accommodation is a fundamental right.” It further stated that “it is a gateway right for persons with disabilities to enjoy all the other rights enshrined in the Constitution and the law.” The Court recorded that “without the gateway right of reasonable accommodation, a person with disability is forced to navigate in a world which excludes them by design.”
In the context of constitutional principles, the Court observed that “the principles contained in Articles 39(a) and 41 must be regarded as equally fundamental in the understanding and interpretation of the meaning and content of fundamental rights.” It further noted that “the right to work is the most precious liberty because it sustains and enables a person to live.”
Addressing the facts of the case, the Court observed that “the appellant qualified for the interview in 2019 selection and was denied employment due to no fault of hers.” It further recorded that “technicalities like expiry of panel for the year or the factum of interim order reserving a vacancy having come to be passed after the expiry of panel cannot come in the way of our doing complete justice.”
The Court also recorded the gendered dimension of the case and observed that “we are also concerned with the intersectionality of disability with gender justice.” It noted that the appellant was “a single woman… who has the urge to succeed notwithstanding the disability she encounters.”
The Court directed that “a supernumerary post be created” to accommodate the appellant. The Chairman of the public sector undertaking would provide “a suitable position/posting commensurate with the ability of the appellant” and that she be provided “a suitable desk job with a separate computer and keyboard, as per universal design as defined under Section 2(ze) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.”
“We request to the Chairman of Coal India Ltd. to post the appellant at North Eastern Coalfields Coal India Ltd., having an office at Margherita, Tinsukia, Assam. We have passed this order, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, keeping in mind Article 41 read with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. We have passed this order additionally in exercise of our power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. We set aside the order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta.”
Case Title: Sujata Bora v. Coal India Limited & Others
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 53
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 120 of 2026
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice K.V. Viswanathan
