Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta directed that persons with benchmark disabilities, whose candidatures were rejected for the post of Auditor under a government recruitment process on the basis of an outdated 2013 post-identification list, must now be considered for appointment against suitable Group 'C' posts in light of the 2021 notification issued under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which recognized mental illness and Specific Learning Disability as eligible categories for such posts.

The dispute arose from a recruitment process conducted by the Staff Selection Commission through the Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2018, for the post of Auditor in the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.

Also Read: Arbitration | Party's Active Participation And Acquiescence In Proceedings Bars Belated Jurisdictional Challenge After Adverse Award: Supreme Court

Two candidates suffering from benchmark disabilities of mental illness and Specific Learning Disability, respectively, were recommended for appointment following successful completion of all examination stages. However, the CAG returned their dossiers on the ground that the post of Auditor had not been identified as suitable for persons with such disabilities, relying on the existing identification list. The rejection was formally communicated to the candidates, and their subsequent representations to the concerned authorities went unaddressed.

The candidates contested the rejection by invoking a Gazette Notification dated January 4, 2021, issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The notification superseded the earlier 2013 list and identified Group 'C' posts, including Assistant (Audit) and Auditor-II, as suitable for persons with mental illness and Specific Learning Disability, thereby forming the basis of their claim to appointment.

Upon examining the submissions advanced by both sides, the court recorded that it was satisfied that the appellant could be considered for appointment in the appropriate category in light of the Gazette Notification dated January 4, 2021, issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. The court noted the affidavit filed by the CAG in compliance with its earlier direction, and observed that "on a perusal of the affidavit filed by respondent No.1 - CAG, it is clear that now, there remains no impediment whatsoever for accommodating the appellant before us as well as R3 – Shri Amit Yadav, against Group 'C' posts which have been identified as suitable to their disabilities."

The court further noted that "the only reservation expressed in the affidavit is that these appointments can be considered only after the recommendation from respondent No.2 - the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) and receipt of the dossiers of the candidates."

Taking stock of the CAG's undertaking to make appointments upon receipt of the dossiers from the Commission, the court stated that "the present appeal deserves to be disposed of in light of the additional affidavit filed by respondent No.1-CAG."

The court also took note of the CAG's affidavit wherein it was stated that "pursuant to the Notification dated 04.01.2021, the Group C posts of Assistant (Audit) and Auditor-II were identified as suitable for persons with benchmark disabilities of Special Learning Disability and Mental Illness" and that "Respondent No.1 is ready and willing to accommodate the Petitioner and Respondent No.3 in Group C posts identified as suitable, immediately after a recommendation/return of the dossier with complete details of the two candidates in this respect is received from Respondent No.2."

Also Read: Establishment Of Kolhapur Circuit Bench Does Not Automatically Divest Principal Seat Of Jurisdiction When Appellate Authority Falls Within Its Territory: Bombay High Court

The Court directed: "The respondent No.2-SSC is directed to forthwith and not later than within a period of two weeks from today, forward the dossiers of the appellant herein, as well as R3 – Shri Amit Yadav to respondent No.1-CAG. Upon the dossiers being received, the appellant herein and R3 – Shri Amit Yadav shall be duly considered for appointment against Group 'C' posts in terms of the additional affidavit dated 16th February, 2026."

"In case the posts advertised vide notification dated 5th May, 2018 have already been filled, the respondents shall create supernumerary posts for accommodating both these candidates. The appointment of the appellant herein and R3 – Shri Amit Yadav shall take effect from the date of their joining."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Rahul Bajaj, Adv. Ms. Sarah, Adv. Mr. Ayyam Perumal Karthik M., AOR.

For the Respondents: Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Adv. Mr. Kamal Digpaul, Adv. Ms. Harshita Choubey, Adv. Mr. Mahendra Kumawat, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. Vaibhav Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Jain, Adv. Mr. Anil Kaushik, A.S.G. Pranjal Singh, Adv. Aashna Gill, Adv. Nachiketa Joshi, Adv. Diwakar Sharma, Adv. Aastha Singh, Adv. Mr. Yogesh Vats, Adv. Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR Rajeshwari Shankar, Adv. Padmesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. S.n.terdal(aor), Adv.

Case Title: Sudhanshu Kardam v. Comptroller and Auditor General of India and Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 232

Case Number: Civil Appeal No(s). of 2026 arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). of 2026, Diary No. 43728/2025

Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta