LawcurbLawcurbTMLegal Intelligence. Simplified.

Sudhanshu Kardamv.Comptroller and Auditor General of India & Ors

Citation:
2026 INSC 232
Date:
12 March 2026
Reading time:
15 min read

Synopsis

This judgment, delivered by the Supreme Court of India on March 12, 2026, arises from a special leave petition filed by a person with benchmark disability (Specific Learning Disability) whose candidature for the post of 'Auditor' was rejected. The core dispute involved the interpretation and application of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and a crucial notification dated January 4, 2021, issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, which revised the list of posts suitable for persons with various benchmark disabilities. The case also involves another candidate (Respondent No. 3) with a mental illness disability, who was similarly aggrieved. The Supreme Court, after hearing the parties and considering an additional affidavit filed by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), disposed of the appeal by directing the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) to forward the dossiers of the two candidates to the CAG for appointment against Group 'C' posts identified as suitable for their disabilities in light of the 2021 notification. The judgment is a significant affirmation of the rights of persons with disabilities to be considered for public employment based on the most current and scientifically evaluated list of suitable posts.


1. Basic Information of the Judgment

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

Citation: 2026 INSC 232

Court: Supreme Court of India

Jurisdiction: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

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

Coram: (The judgment text does not specify the judges' names, but it is a Division Bench of the Supreme Court)

Nature of Bench: Division Bench

Date of Judgment/Order: March 12, 2026


2. Legal Framework and Relevant Provisions

  • Primary Statute:
    Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act, 2016):
    Section 33: Mandates the appropriate Government to constitute an expert committee to identify posts which can be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities.
    Section 34: Provides for reservation of not less than four per cent. of the total number of vacancies in government establishments for persons with benchmark disabilities, categorized under different disability types.
    Section 2(r): Defines "person with benchmark disability" as a person with not less than forty per cent. of a specified disability.

  • Key Executive Instruments:
    Notification dated 04.01.2021: Issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan). This notification superseded the earlier list from 2013 and published a new, comprehensive list of Central Government posts (Group A, B, C, and D) identified as suitable for persons with benchmark disabilities. Crucially, for this case, it included posts suitable for persons with "Specific Learning Disability" and "Mental Illness," which were not covered in the previous list.

  • Recruitment Rules/Process:
    Staff Selection Commission (SSC) Combined Graduate Level Examination (CGLE), 2018: The recruitment process under which the appellant and respondent No. 3 applied.
    Post Code D33 (Auditor): The specific post in the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) for which the candidates applied.

  • Key Legal Concepts:
    Identification of Suitable Posts: A statutory requirement under Section 33 of the RPwD Act, 2016, for the government to determine, based on expert opinion, which posts can be effectively performed by persons with different benchmark disabilities.
    Non-Discrimination and Equal Opportunity: The principle that persons with disabilities have a right to equal opportunity in public employment, and that recruitment processes must be based on the most current and scientifically valid information about their capabilities.
    Prospective Application of Beneficial Notifications: The principle that a notification that expands the scope of eligibility or suitability for a marginalized group should be given effect, especially where administrative processes are ongoing.


3. Relevant Facts of the Case

  • In 2018, the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) initiated the CGLE-2018 to fill various Group 'B' and 'C' posts, including two vacancies for the post of 'Auditor' in the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) under the "Other PwD" category.

  • Respondent No. 3 (Shri Amit Yadav): Applied under the OBC and "Other PwD" category, possessing a valid disability certificate for "mental illness." He successfully cleared all stages of the examination and was recommended for appointment to the post of 'Auditor' (D33).

  • On September 28, 2021, the CAG declared a State/Office Allocation List, returning the dossiers of several candidates, including Shri Amit Yadav, on the ground that the post of 'Auditor' was not identified as suitable for persons with 'mental illness' benchmark disability. His rejection was formally communicated on September 30, 2021.

  • Shri Amit Yadav challenged this rejection before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), relying on a Gazette Notification dated January 4, 2021, which, he argued, expressly included 'mental illness' as suitable for the post of 'Auditor'.

  • The CAT allowed his application on January 23, 2023, directing the CAG to constitute a Medical Board to assess his fitness and, if found fit, offer him appointment.

  • The CAG challenged the CAT's order before the Delhi High Court. The High Court allowed the CAG's writ petition on May 29, 2025, setting aside the CAT's order and restoring the rejection.

  • The Appellant (Sudhanshu Kardam): He was a PwD candidate with Specific Learning Disability (SLD) belonging to the Scheduled Caste category. He had also challenged the same communication before the CAT in a separate application (O.A. No. 2563 of 2021), which was pending. He sought impleadment in the High Court proceedings, which was allowed.

  • After the High Court's adverse judgment, the appellant approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court issued notice and heard arguments.

  • On January 6, 2026, after hearing detailed arguments, the Court requested the Additional Solicitor General to obtain instructions on accommodating the two candidates in light of the January 4, 2021 notification.

  • Pursuant to this, the CAG filed an additional affidavit on February 16, 2026, stating that pursuant to the January 4, 2021 notification, Group 'C' posts (like Assistant (Audit) and Auditor-II) were now identified as suitable for persons with Specific Learning Disability and Mental Illness. The CAG expressed its willingness to accommodate the candidates, subject to the SSC forwarding their dossiers/recommendations.


4. Issues Before the Supreme Court

  • Whether the rejection of the candidature of the appellant and respondent No. 3 for the post of 'Auditor' in the CAG, based on the pre-2021 understanding of suitable posts, was sustainable after the issuance of the notification dated January 4, 2021, which expanded the list of suitable posts to include their disabilities?

  • What is the appropriate remedy for candidates who were wrongfully excluded from consideration due to an outdated list of suitable posts, when a subsequent, more inclusive notification has been issued?


5. Ratio Decidendi of the Court

The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by way of a consent order based on the CAG's undertaking. The key findings and directions are as follows:

  • The 2021 Notification is Determinative: The Court took judicial notice of the Gazette Notification dated January 4, 2021, issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. This notification, based on the recommendations of an Expert Committee constituted under Section 33 of the RPwD Act, 2016, superseded the previous 2013 list. It explicitly identified Group 'C' posts (including those analogous to the ones in question) as suitable for persons with Specific Learning Disability and Mental Illness.

  • CAG's Willingness to Accommodate: The Court recorded the CAG's unequivocal statement in its additional affidavit that it was "ready and willing to accommodate the Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 in Group C posts identified as suitable" pursuant to the 2021 notification.

  • Procedural Hurdle Removed: The only procedural hurdle identified by the CAG was the absence of a formal recommendation and dossier from the SSC, the recruiting agency. The Court addressed this directly by issuing a direction to the SSC.

  • Direction to SSC: The Court directed respondent No. 2 (Staff Selection Commission) to forthwith, and not later than within two weeks, forward the dossiers of both the appellant (Sudhanshu Kardam) and respondent No. 3 (Shri Amit Yadav) to the CAG.

  • Direction to CAG: Upon receipt of the dossiers, the CAG was directed to duly consider both candidates for appointment against Group 'C' posts, in line with its affidavit and the 2021 notification. The Court also clarified that if the posts advertised in 2018 had already been filled, the appointments would be made against existing or future vacancies for such posts, and their appointment would take effect from the date of their joining.


6. Legal Framework Established / Clarified

This judgment, while brief, reinforces and clarifies several key aspects of disability rights jurisprudence:

  • Primacy of Updated Expert Determinations: The judgment underscores that the identification of posts suitable for persons with benchmark disabilities under Section 33 of the RPwD Act is a dynamic process. The most recent, expert-driven notification (here, the 2021 notification) must be given effect, overriding outdated lists. Employers cannot continue to rely on superseded lists to the detriment of eligible candidates.

  • Duty of the Employer to Align with Legal Updates: The judgment implicitly holds that government departments and cadre-controlling authorities have a duty to align their recruitment processes with the latest statutory notifications regarding suitability. Once a notification is issued expanding the scope of eligibility, it cannot be ignored in ongoing or pending matters where no final appointment order has been issued.

  • Effective Remedy for Exclusion: The Court demonstrated a pragmatic approach to providing an effective remedy. Instead of remanding the matter for a fresh round of litigation, it facilitated a direct resolution by securing the employer's consent and issuing a consequential direction to the recruiting agency. This ensures that the candidates are not left in a legal limbo.

  • Role of the Recruiting Agency and Employer: The judgment clarifies the respective roles: the SSC is the recommending authority, and the CAG is the appointing authority. A coordination between the two, facilitated by a court order, can resolve long-standing disputes.

  • Protection of Rights Without Disturbing Past Appointments: The Court's direction that appointments be made against existing or future vacancies, if the original posts are filled, is a balanced approach. It protects the rights of the successful candidates without unsettling the appointments of others who may have already joined.


7. Court's Examination and Analysis

The Supreme Court's analysis was focused on the practical resolution of the dispute rather than on an elaborate legal interpretation:

  • Identification of the Core Conflict: The Court recognized that the core of the dispute was the clash between an outdated list of suitable posts (applied by the CAG in 2021) and a new, more inclusive list (the January 4, 2021 notification).

  • Reliance on the CAG's Affidavit: The Court gave significant weight to the additional affidavit filed by the CAG. This affidavit was a game-changer, as it contained an unequivocal undertaking to accommodate the candidates. The Court's analysis effectively validated this undertaking as the legally correct position in light of the 2021 notification.

  • Addressing the SSC's Role: The Court correctly identified that the SSC's recommendation was a necessary procedural step. By issuing a direct, time-bound direction to the SSC to forward the dossiers, the Court removed the final procedural impediment.

  • Ensuring Completeness of Relief: The Court did not stop at directing the SSC to forward the dossiers. It also directed the CAG to consider the candidates for appointment and provided a clear mechanism (appointment against existing or future vacancies) to ensure the relief was meaningful and not defeated by the passage of time.

  • Humanitarian Approach: The Court's approach was imbued with a humanitarian perspective, seeking to ensure that two persons with benchmark disabilities, who had successfully cleared a national-level examination, were not denied their rightful opportunity due to a lag in the application of an updated policy.


8. Critical Analysis and Final Outcome

  • Outcome: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in terms of the directions. It set aside the procedural hurdle and directed the SSC to forward the dossiers of the appellant and respondent No. 3 to the CAG within two weeks. The CAG was then directed to consider them for appointment against Group 'C' posts in light of the January 4, 2021 notification, against existing or future vacancies if the original posts are filled. Their appointments would take effect from the date of joining.

  • Critical Perspectives:
    Strengths: The judgment is a model of efficient, pragmatic, and rights-affirming adjudication. It cuts through procedural knots and delivers substantive justice. By relying on the CAG's undertaking, it avoids a lengthy legal battle and ensures a swift remedy. It powerfully affirms the principle that the State must continuously update its understanding of the capabilities of persons with disabilities and align its employment practices accordingly.
    Affirmation of the RPwD Act: The judgment gives teeth to the mechanism under Sections 33 and 34 of the RPwD Act, 2016. It shows that the identification of suitable posts is not a one-time exercise but an ongoing process, and that the latest expert determination must be respected by all government bodies.
    Victory for the Candidates: The judgment is a significant personal victory for two individuals who fought a long legal battle for their rightful place in public service. It restores their faith in the justice system.
    Potential Criticism (Procedural): One could argue that the Court's direction to the SSC to forward dossiers for a recruitment process from 2018 might be seen as bypassing standard recruitment timelines. However, the Court's decision is justified because the delay was caused by the application of an incorrect policy (the outdated list), not by any fault of the candidates. The CAG's own undertaking neutralizes any objection from the employer's side.
    Guidance for Future Cases: The judgment provides a clear precedent for similar cases. It establishes that if a notification identifying suitable posts for PwD candidates is updated during the pendency of a recruitment or litigation, the updated list should be applied to ensure that the rights of candidates are protected. It also encourages government departments to adopt a conciliatory approach when the legal position becomes clear, avoiding protracted litigation.

  • Core Final Directive: The identification of posts suitable for persons with benchmark disabilities under Section 33 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, must be based on the most current expert determination and official notification. If a candidate's rejection was based on an outdated list, and a subsequent notification establishes that the post is suitable for their disability, the rejection cannot stand. The recruiting and appointing authorities must collaborate to accommodate such candidates, with the court facilitating this process by issuing necessary directions to ensure that the candidates are not deprived of their legitimate right to be considered for appointment.


(MCQs)


1. Under which section of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, is the appropriate Government mandated to constitute an expert committee to identify posts suitable for persons with benchmark disabilities?
A) Section 32
B) Section 33
C) Section 34
D) Section 2(r)


2. The Gazette Notification dated 04.01.2021, issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, is significant in this case because it:?
A) Superseded the 2013 list and identified Group 'C' posts as suitable for persons with Specific Learning Disability and Mental Illness.
B) Created a new reservation quota for the CAG.
C) Abolished the post of 'Auditor' in the CAG.
D) Directed the SSC to conduct a fresh examination.


3. What was the primary procedural direction issued by the Supreme Court to respondent No. 2 (the Staff Selection Commission)?
A) To cancel the results of the CGLE-2018.
B) To conduct a fresh skill test for the candidates.
C) To forthwith forward the dossiers of the appellant and respondent No. 3 to the CAG.
D) To issue a new notification for recruitment.


4. The Supreme Court directed that if the posts advertised in 2018 had already been filled, the appellant and respondent No. 3 should be appointed against:?
A) Posts in a different department.
B) Posts created under a special central scheme.
C) Existing or future vacancies for such posts.
D) Supernumerary posts created by a separate order.

View full judgment (PDF)