Ms. Swathi Sukumar, Sr. Adv. and Mr. Rishabh Sharma, Ms. Ambica Sood, Mr. Ritik v. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATIONAL PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION ITS VICE

Judgment

1. The present writ petition has been instituted by the petitioner seeking omnibus relief(s) including (i) quashing of the impugned Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAJEEV DHANKHAR Signing Date:22.12.2025 17:48:03 W.P.(C) 13481/2025 Results dated 11.02.2025 issued by National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration1 (hereinafter Respondent No.1) , as far as they deal with the results of the Persons with Disability2 (ii) quashing of Advertisement No. A3/2023 dated 27.12.2023 (“impugned Advertisement” hereinafter) pursuant to which the recruitment was undertaken (iii) partial quashing of Clause 4.1.I.B (Note) of the University Grants Commission3 Regulations, 2018 to the extent it provides that selection to the post of Assistant Professor shall be solely on the basis of performance in the interview round and (iv) quashing of the subsequent Advt. No. 2/2025-NIEPA (“New Advertisement” hereinafter) dated 06.06.2025 issued by Respondent No. 1. The petitioner has also sought consequential directions for re-advertisement and reconsideration of the petitioner’s candidature in accordance with law.

2. The material facts, as borne out from the record, are that Respondent No.1 issued an advertisement dated 27.12.2023 inviting online applications for recruitment to various faculty positions, including four posts of Assistant Professor. Out of these four posts, one post was notified as reserved for PwD candidates. The impugned Advertisement also stated that concession/relaxation would be provided to PwD candidates with more than 40% disability and the said impugned Advertisement also stipulated that the selection for the said post was based entirely on performance in the interview. 1 “NIEPA” hereinafter 2 “PwD” hereinafter 3 “UGC” hereinafter Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAJEEV DHANKHAR Signing Date:22.12.2025 17:48:03 W.P.(C) 13481/2025

3. The petitioner, who is admittedly a person with benchmark disability4 having 75% locomotor disability, applied for the post of Assistant Professor under the PwD category on 07.01.2024. The application was thereafter subjected to scrutiny by the Screening Committee. As per the materials placed on record, the petitioner’s application was evaluated, and he was awarded 73 marks out of 100 and was found eligible for the subsequent interview. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 published a list of shortlisted candidates for the subsequent interview round, which included the petitioner, and he was directed to appear before the Selection Committee on 03.02.2025.

4. Accordingly, the interview was conducted on 03.02.2025. Thereafter, on 11.02.2025, Respondent No.1 published the category wise result of the selection process. As per the declared results, candidates were selected under the categories of Unreserved, Other Backward Classes and Scheduled Castes. In so far as the PwD category was concerned, the impugned Results recorded that “none of the candidates interviewed by the Committee was found suitable for the post”.

5. Following the declaration of the impugned Result, a series of applications under the Right of Information 5Act, 2005 were filed by the petitioner seeking information regarding, inter alia, the reasons for non-selection, details of relaxation allegedly granted to PwD candidates, subject-wise distribution of vacancies, marks obtained, constitution of the Selection Committee, internal distribution of marks Signature Not Verified 4 “PwBD” hereinafter 5 “RTI” hereinafter Signed By:RAJEEV DHANKHAR Signing Date:22.12.2025 17:48:03 W.P.(C) 13481/2025 obtained and the status of the unfilled PwD vacancy.

6. However, respondent No.1 declined to furnish several material details, while stating that no reasons were recorded by the Selection Committee for declaring “none found suitable” for the concerned PwD candidates; that there was no internal distribution of interview marks; that 13 PwD candidates were interviewed and that the unfilled PwD post would be treated as a backlog vacancy and carried forward as an EWS-PwD post. Meanwhile, pursuant to a separate RTI dated

03.04.2025 filed by Ms. Amrita Singh, the Respondent No.1 furnished the roster for Assistant Professors on 01.05.2025.

7. Subsequently, on 06.06.2025, Respondent No.1 issued a fresh Advertisement, bearing No. 2/2025-NIEPA, whereby the unfilled post of Assistant Professor under the PwD category was re-advertised. However, in the said new advertisement, the vacancy was notified as reserved specifically for EWS-PwD candidates, and not as a general PwD vacancy.

8. It is in this aforementioned backdrop that the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition, challenging the impugned Result dated 11.02.2024, the impugned Advertisement dated 27.12.2023, the subsequent New Advertisement dated 06.06.2025, whereby the PwD vacancy is carried-forwarded as an EWS-PwD vacancy, and seeking appropriate reliefs in this regard. Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAJEEV DHANKHAR Signing Date:22.12.2025 17:48:03 W.P.(C) 13481/2025 CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES PETITIONER’S CONTENTION

9. Ms. Swathi Sukumar, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had nearly 16 years of teaching experience in the field of education and social sciences and suffered from benchmark disability with 75% locomotor impairment of both lower limbs, thereby falling within the protective ambit of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 20166.

10. It was submitted that the petitioner had assailed the impugned Result dated 11.02.2025, impugned Advertisement dated

27.12.2023, the subsequent New Advertisement dated 06.06.2025 and Clause 4.1.I.B (Note) of the UGC Regulations insofar as the said clause provided for selection to the post of Assistant Professor solely on the basis of interview performance.

11. Learned Counsel submitted that although one post of Assistant Professor had been expressly reserved for PwD candidates and despite the advertisement itself promising concessions and relaxations to persons having more than 40% disability, it was rather strange that no PwD candidate was selected, even though 13 PwD candidates, including the petitioner, were shortlisted and interviewed. It was contended that the impugned Result was completely silent on the application of any relaxed standards or separate cut-off for PwD candidates. Signature Not Verified 6 “RPwD Act” hereinafter Signed By:RAJEEV DHANKHAR Signing Date:22.12.2025 17:48:03 W.P.(C) 13481/2025

12. It was further submitted that the petitioner had secured 73 out of 100 marks in the screening process and was, hence, called for an interview. However, no reasons for non-selection of any PwD candidate were disclosed, nor were the details of relaxed standards or benchmarks provided.

13. Learned Counsel submitted that even in response to the specific RTI query regarding the nature of relaxation granted to PwD candidates, Respondent No.1 merely replied that there was no upper age limit, which, it was argued, could not be treated as relaxation in the context of selection standards whatsoever. It was contended that this demonstrated non-application of meaningful relaxed standards.

14. It was submitted that Clause 11.1 of the Office Memorandum7 dated 15.01.2018 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training8 mandated adoption of relaxed standards where reserved vacancies for PwBD candidates remained unfilled on general standards, provided the candidates were not found unfit. It was contended that Respondent No.1 had failed to apply the said mandate, contrary to the law as recognized by the Supreme Court in In re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services.9

15. Learned Counsel further submitted that the failure to apply relaxed standards, prescribe a separate cut-off, and to ensure meaningful consideration of PwD candidates, amounted to denial of 7 “OM” hereinafter 8 “DoPT” hereinafter 9 2025 SCC OnLine SC 481 Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAJEEV DHANKHAR Signing Date:22.12.2025 17:48:03 W.P.(C) 13481/2025 reasonable accommodation, which was a positive obligation upon the State under the RPwD Act. Reliance in this regard was placed on Vikash Kumar v. UPSC10, Kunal Singh v. Union of India11, Justice Sunanda Bhandari Foundation v Union of India and Anr12, wherein the Supreme Court had held that reasonable accommodation was integral to ensure substantive equality and went beyond mere formal non-discrimination.

16. Learned Counsel submitted that the RTI replies furnished by Respondent No.1 revealed serious procedural lapses, inasmuch as Respondent No.1 refused to clarify whether Clause 11.1 of the DoPT OM was implemented or not, reduced the concept of relaxation merely to absence of upper age limit, admitted that no internal distribution of interview marks was maintained, and also revealed from the reservation roster that not a single PwD candidate had ever been appointed as Assistant Professor in NIEPA, thereby indicating systemic non- implementation of Section 34 of the RPwD Act, 2016.

17. Learned Counsel submitted that such conduct amounted to non- compliance with Section 34 of the RPwD Act, which mandated that no less than 4% of the cadre strength must be reserved for PwBD.

18. Learned Counsel further submitted that the entire selection process had been conducted exclusively on the basis of the performance in the interview as contemplated under Clause 4.1.I.B (Note) of the