Mr. S.K. Rungta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv v. AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND ANR

Judgment

1. Said Lady Smart, from Jonathan Swift’s “Polite Conversation in Three Dialogues”, penned early in the 18th century – “There’s none so blind as they that won’t see”.

2. We, in this batch of cases, are faced with the question – Can the blind see?

3. Law, however, has a habit of complicating the simplest of issues.

4. We have, in the pantheon of Counsel in our Court, lawyers such as Mr. Rungta, who argued these matters with characteristic poise and composure, and Mr. Rahul Bajaj, who have triumphantly breached the boundary between blindness and vision. We have often wondered, after observing them at their best, whether they are not more accomplished than many of their more “able-bodied” colleagues. Vision – or the lack of it – has certainly not stood in their way.

5. With that brief preface, we may turn to the facts. Advertisement 03/2023 and Department of Empowerment of

6. Persons with Disabilities1 Notification dated 4 January 2021

6.1 Advertisement 03/2023 was issued by the Airports Authority of India2, inviting applications for various posts. Among them was the post of Junior Executive (Law)3, to which the petitioner aspires. The 1 “DEPWD” hereinafter 2 "AAI" hereinafter 3 "JE (Law)" hereinafter Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:16.10.2025 16:25:23 W.P.(C) 938/2025 and other connected matters Post Code assigned to the post of JE (Law) was “06”. The Advertisement also contained a Table identifying posts which were suitable for persons with benchmark disabilities4 , within the meaning of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 20165. To the extent the Table applied to the post of JE (Law), it provided thus: Post Code Functional Requirements Suitable categories of Benchmark Disabilities A B C D E ***** 06 S, ST, W, BN, RW, SE, H, C, MF B, LV D, HH ASD, SLD, MI MD Involving categories (A) (D) OA, BA, OL, BL, OAL, CP, LC, Dw, SD/SI AAV, without associated neurological/limb dysfunction (SD/SI associated neurological dysfunction shall be covered respective category of OA, BA, OL, OAL) The various letters used in the above Table refer to various categories of disabilities or functional attributes. For our purpose, suffice it to note that “B”, “LV” and “S” were used for “Blind”, “Low Vision” and “Seeing” respectively. [The letters “A” to “E” were used to identify the number of vacancies which are allocated against each category of disability. For the post of JE (Law), the Advertisement allocated two vacancies under Category “A” and one vacancy under category “C”. No vacancies were Signature Not Verified 4 "PwBD" hereinafter 5 "the RPWD Act" hereinafter Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:16.10.2025 16:25:23 W.P.(C) 938/2025 and other connected matters allocated under Categories B, D or E. In other words, two vacancies were reserved for persons who are blind or suffered from low vision, and one vacancy was reserved for persons suffering from the disabilities envisaged in the above Table under Category C. We are not, in this case, concerned with Category C.]

6.2 Prior to the above advertisement, DEPWD had, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 336 of the RPWD Act, issued Notification dated 4 January 2021, identifying Groups A, B, C, and D posts which could be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities. These were provided in a tabular form in Annexure C to the Notification. At Serial Nos. 324 and 1194 in the said Table figured the posts of Legal Assistant, in Groups B and C. The entries in that regard read as under: Sl No Desig- nation 324 Legal Assistant Functio- Require -ments S, ST, W, BN, RW, SE, H, C, MF Suitable category Benchmark Disabilities B, LV a) D, HH b) c) OA, BA, OL, BL, OAL, BL, BLA, BLOA, CP, LC, Dw, AAV ASD (M), SLD, MI MD Involving (a) to (d) d) e) Nature of work performed Working Conditions/ Remarks The work is mostly inside. performed The workplace lighted. Incumbent should be considered appropriate software , aids and appliances support as per the needs. They study facts, available documents papers pertaining to legal aspect of different raised by various Government Departments and give opinions and advice Government necessary. May scrutinise on legal advice 6 33. Signature Not Verified Identification of posts for reservation.—The appropriate Government shall— (i) identify posts in the establishments which can be held by respective category of persons with benchmark disabilities in respect of the vacancies reserved in accordance with the provisions of Section 34; (ii) for identification of such posts; and (iii) constitute an expert committee with representation of persons with benchmark disabilities undertake periodic review of the identified posts at an interval not exceeding three years. Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:16.10.2025 16:25:23 W.P.(C) 938/2025 and other connected matters aspects Government and regulations etc. May prepare and proceeding plaints, complaints, statement, affidavits etc, civil and criminal courts law, advice Government department procure evidence and documents etc support case. particular May prepare witness appearing behalf Government. May appear in the court of law to plead the Government case. May prepare briefs senior lawyers. Will assist the officers for the above work. Assists Solicitors and Advocate their work collecting documents clients, organisers employed, studying details of cases, preparing briefs, supplying relevant decisions or similar connected, etc. In support pleadings. Interviews clients, discusses history and collect documents pertaining to case, if any. Examines witnesses discusses case with senior (Solicitor or advocate). Studies relevant case laws, prepares briefs for pleading

The work is mostly performed inside in well lighted rooms. The worker usually alone. The incumbent should be considered with aids and appliances. 1194 Legal Assistant S, ST, W, SE, H, C, MF a) b) c) d) e) B, LV HH OA, BA, OL, BL, OAL, CP, LC, Dw, AAV, MDy SLD, MI MD involving (a) to (d) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:16.10.2025 16:25:23 W.P.(C) 938/2025 and other connected matters instructed and files court. Assists Advocate in preparing witnesses for evidence and cross examination, and in conducting case. Notes 1, 2, 7 and 8, in the aforesaid Notification, read thus: “Note 1: Persons with benchmark disabilities require aids and assistive devices to overcome the difficulties. The aids and assistive devices may be provided to persons with benchmark disabilities on their appointment keeping in view their requirement as per the instructions of DOPT issued from time to time. Note 2: The list of posts being notified is only indicative and not an exhaustive list. If a post is not mentioned in the list, it is not to be construed that it has been exempted. Ministries, Departments, Autonomous Bodies, Public Sector Undertakings may further supplement the list by adding to the list of posts identified for respective category of disability. Note 7: In case of posts identified suitable for more than one sub- category under the broad category, individual Ministries or Departments or Public Sector Undertakings or Autonomous Bodies should conduct recruitment for all the sub- categories and cannot suo moto choose one particular sub-category appointment. Note 8: It is for the Central Ministries or Departments or public Sector Undertakings or Autonomous Bodies to verify the authenticity of the certificate of disability and examine suitability of the candidate in terms of functional requirements before appointment against any identified post.”

7. Facts relating to the petitioner

7.1 The petitioner is blind. He applied for recruitment to the post of JE (Law), pursuant to Advertisement 03/2023. In his application, he disclosed the fact that he was blind. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:16.10.2025 16:25:23 W.P.(C) 938/2025 and other connected matters

7.2 Consequent on his application, the petitioner underwent the Computer Based Test7, forming the initial part of the selection process for the post of JE (Law) on 21 October 2023. He was provisionally selected, as per the result of the CBT, which was declared on 23 November 2023.

7.3 The petitioner thereafter participated in the exercise of document verification. At this stage, the respondent issued an e-mail to the petitioner on 24 May 2024, informing him that his selection for the post of JE (Law) was withheld for confirming whether he met the functional requirements stipulated for the post in the Advertisement. In the Final Result which came, thereafter, to be published on 24 May 2024, the name of the petitioner did not figure in the list of candidates selected for the post of JE (Law).

7.4 On 16 October 2024, the petitioner was issued a further e-mail by the respondent, paras 1 to 3 of which merit reproduction: Reference is made to trailing mail with regard to your “1. withheld selection for the post of Junior Executive (Law). Please note that “Reading & Writing” and “Seeing” are one 2. of the functional Requirements for the post of Junior Executive (Law) as specified under the heading “Posts Identified Suitable for Persons with Benchmark Disability (PwBD)” of Advt No. 03/2023.

3. “Form for Assessing Functional Requirements” submitted by you certified that you cannot perform work by “Reading & Writing” and “Seeing”. As you do not meet two of the Functional Requirements, you are prima facie ineligible for selection to the post of Junior Executive (Law).” Signature Not Verified 7 "CBT" hereinafter Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:16.10.2025 16:25:23 W.P.(C) 938/2025 and other connected matters The communication, however, granted the petitioner a further opportunity to reassess his Functional Requirements, on the date and time stipulated therein.

7.5 The reassessment took place on 22 October 2024. Consequent thereon, the petitioner was issued another e-mail dated 13 December 2024, which informed him that the Medical Report following his reassessment once again certified that he could not perform work by seeing. As “seeing” was one of the Functional Requirements stipulated for the post of JE (Law) in the Advertisement, the petitioner’s candidature was cancelled. The e-mail invoked Note 8 of the Notification dated 4 January 2021 supra.

7.6 Aggrieved by the rejection of his candidature, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition before this Court, seeking quashing of the decision to cancel his candidature as well as Note 8 in the Notification dated 4 January 2021 supra.

8. Pleadings in the writ petition have been completed. We have heard Mr. Rungta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Digvijay Rai, learned SC for the AAI and Mr. Vinay Yadav, learned SPC, for the UOI. Rival Contentions

9. Submissions of Mr. Rungta Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:16.10.2025 16:25:23 W.P.(C) 938/2025 and other connected matters

9.1 Mr. Rungta submits that, once the post of JE (Law) was identified as suitable for blind candidates as well as candidates suffering from low vision, both in the Notification dated 4 January 2021 as well as in the Advertisement, there could be no justification for excluding, from the said post, blind candidates.

9.2 Mr. Rungta points out that the very purpose of identification of posts, as envisaged by Section 33(i) of the RPWD Act, presumes that persons with the categories of identified disabilities are capable of holding the identified posts. Identification of posts, he points out, is a detailed and involved exercise, undertaken by the Committee constituted for the said purpose, following the procedure stipulated in Section 33(2). The Notification dated 4 January 2021 also clearly states that the identification of posts, for various categories of disabilities, therein, was consequent on the said statutory exercise having been undertaken by the duly constituted Committee. The posts of Junior Assistant (Law) – which was the same as the post of JE (Law) to which the petitioner aspires – was identified as suitable for candidates who were blind, or who had low vision, keeping in view the functional requirements of the post, which included “seeing”. It was for this purpose, submits Mr. Rungta, that the Notification specifically provided that suitability had to be assessed with the aid of assistive devices. If, with the aid of assistive devices, the petitioner was in a position to “see”, he could not be regarded as ineligible for appointment as JE (Law). He submits that, with the passage of time, several innovative assistive devices are available, even in the form of software, using which persons who are completely blind are able to Signature Not Verified function to optimum capacity and are even working on computers. He Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:16.10.2025 16:25:23 W.P.(C) 938/2025 and other connected matters lays especial stress, in this context, on Note 1 in the DEPWD Notification dated 4 January 2021, which emphasises use of aids and assistive devices so that persons with benchmark disabilities could overcome their difficulties. The same Rule also envisages providing of such aids and assistive devices to persons with benchmark disabilities on their appointment, in accordance with the instructions issued by the DOPT. As such, he submits that excluding the blind from appointment would militate against the very intent and purpose of Note 1.

9.3 Mr. Rungta further submits that the Respondents could not have ousted the petitioner from appointment on the basis of the opinion of the doctor. He places reliance, in this context, on Clause 12 of Office Memorandum8 dated 15 January 2018 issued by the DOPT under the RPWD Act, which reads: “12. MEDICAL EXAMINATION: As per Rule 10 of the Fundamental Rules, every new entrant to Government Service on initial appointment is required to produce a medical certificate of fitness issued by a competent authority. In case of medical examination of a person with benchmark disabilities for appointment to a post identified as suitable to be held by a person suffering from a particular kind of disability, the concerned Medical Officer or Board shall be informed beforehand that the post is identified suitable to be held by persons with benchmark disabilities of the relevant category and the candidate shall then be examined medically keeping this fact in view.” Thus, submits Mr. Rungta, the purpose of a medical examination can only be to identify whether the candidate is suffering from any other ailment and not to arrive at an assessment regarding his disability. Signature Not Verified 8 “OM” hereinafter Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:16.10.2025 16:25:23 W.P.(C) 938/2025 and other connected matters

9.4 Mr. Rungta submits that, as it is a truism that the blind candidates cannot see, if the concept of sight is to be understood as the respondents would seek to understand it, it would make a mockery of the entire concept of reservation envisaged in Sections 33 and 34 of the RPWD Act. The fate of blind candidates, who are otherwise identified as suitable for the post of JE (Law) would become dependent on the doctor’s certification. If the doctor certifies that the blind candidate can see, he would be appointed; else, he would be rejected. Mr. Rungta submits that such a consequence is completely inimical to the RPWD Act. Mr. Rungta further submits that Note 8 to the DEPWD OM dated 4 January 2021 is not intended to empower the Respondent to ascertain the suitability of a candidate belonging to an identified category of disability for appointment through a medical assessment. In fact, the Union of India has, in para 3 of its counter- affidavit, under the head “Preliminary Submissions”, itself contended that this interpretation, as adopted by the AAI, is a misconstruction of Note 8. If Note 8 were to be so construed, it would be rendered ultra vires Sections 33 and 34 of the RPWD Act and, consequently, illegal. He emphasises that, once a post is declared as identified for candidates who suffer from a particular category of disability, in accordance with Section 33 of the RPWD Act, candidates who possess that disability cannot be denied appointment to post falling under on the basis of further medical assessment with respect to functional suitability. Functional requirements are consideration by the committee constituted under Section 33 of the RPWD Act, before identifying posts as capable of being filled by Signature Not Verified candidates who have one or other disabilities. He relies, for his Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:16.10.2025 16:25:23 W.P.(C) 938/2025 and other connected matters submissions, on the judgements of the Supreme Court in paras 25 and 26 of Government of India v Ravi Prakash Gupta9, paras 31 to 33 of Union of India v National Federation of the Blind10, Vikash Kumar v UPSC11 and paras 23, 26 to 30, 34 and 41 to 44 of the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in National Federation of the Blind v Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan12.

9.5 To support his submission, Mr. Rungta places reliance on paras 4, 41 and 42 of the judgement of the Supreme Court in In re. Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services13, in which, he submits, the Supreme Court had declared Rule 6(A) of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Examination (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 199414, as well as the action taken thereunder, illegal.

9.6 Mr. Rungta submits that there is, in fact, no post, advertised in the Advertisement under consideration, for which “seeing” is not stipulated as a functional requirement. If, therefore, the interpretation adopted by the respondents is to be upheld, he submits that blind candidates would be completely excluded from consideration under the Advertisement.

10. Submissions of Mr. Digvijay Rai, for AAI