Supreme Court Directs Creation Of Supernumerary Post And Appointment For Candidate With Multiple Disabilities

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan heard an appeal against a Division Bench order of the Calcutta High Court challenging the refusal of appointment to a 2019 Management Trainee recruit on grounds of disability and the non-recognition of her multiple disabilities for the reserved quota.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench order and held that the appellant qualified for appointment to the post of Management Trainee. The Court noted that an AIIMS medical board found the appellant to have 57% disability—above the statutory benchmark of 40%—and directed the creation of a supernumerary post, a posting at the North Eastern Coalfields (Margherita, Tinsukia, Assam) and provision of reasonable workplace accommodations, including a suitable desk job with a separate computer and keyboard “as per universal design”. The Court invoked the doctrine of reasonable accommodation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and emphasised the interplay of Articles 14, 21 and Article 41 of the Constitution, exercising powers under Article 142 to mould relief. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Section 2(y) of the RPwD Act, defines ‘reasonable accommodation’ to mean necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments, without imposing a disproportionate or undue burden in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise of rights equally with others. The concept of reasonable accommodation would encompass within itself the deployment of a purposive and meaningful construction of the NMC Regulations of 13.05.2019 read with the Appendix H-1 guidelines in a manner as to further the objectives of the RPwD Act. The reasonable accommodation as defined in Section 2(y) of the RPwD Act should not be understood narrowly to mean only the provision of assisting devices and other tangible substances which will aid persons with disabilities. If the mandate of the law is to ensure a full and effective participation of persons with disabilities in the society and if the whole idea was to exclude conditions that prevent their full and effective participation as equal members of society, a broad interpretation of the concept of reasonable accommodation which will further the objective of the RPwD Act and Article 41 of the Directive Principles of State Policy is mandated.”

Background The dispute arose from a Coal India Limited advertisement of 16.12.2019 for recruitment of Management Trainees. The appellant applied under the Visually Handicapped category, was shortlisted for interview and called for document verification and Initial Medical Examination (IME). She underwent IME in September 2021 and was declared unfit on the ground she suffered not only visual disability but also residuary partial hemiparesis. The appellant challenged the IME result by filing WPA No. 970 of 2023 before the Calcutta High Court.

A learned Single Judge quashed the IME finding and directed that the appellant be allowed to participate in the 2023 recruitment process from the IME stage and that, if found eligible, she would be appointed as a Management Trainee; an interim order had earlier directed one post be kept vacant. The Division Bench set aside that order on the ground that the petition and interim order were filed after the expiry of the selection panel. The appellant then approached this Court.

This Court directed the Director of AIIMS, New Delhi to constitute a Board of experts (including Dr. Satendra Singh) to assess the disability. AIIMS initially recommended further PMR and neurosurgical evaluation; a subsequent report dated 01.01.2026 assessed the appellant at 57% disability, exceeding the 40% benchmark. The Supreme Court found that the appellant was wrongly denied employment due to the advertisement not providing for “multiple disability” even though her disability met the benchmark. Relying on established precedents on reasonable accommodation, equality and the right to work, the Court ordered a supernumerary post, specified reasonable workplace modifications, suggested posting at North Eastern Coalfields (Margherita) and clarified that the order was passed in the peculiar facts of the case under Articles 14, 21 and 41 and under Article 142. The appeal was disposed of accordingly; the Division Bench order in MAT 2325/2023 stood set aside.

Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 120 of 2026 (2026 INSC 53) Case Title: Sujata Bora v. Coal India Limited & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Prashant Srikant Kinjale, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vivek Narayan Sharma, Advocate