Delhi High Court on Compassionate Appointment and Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

The Delhi High Court upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order directing reconsideration of a disabled candidate’s case for compassionate appointment. The Court held that denial of employment on the ground of “no vacancy” violated the principles of reasonable accommodation and inclusive equality under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016. It reiterated that compassionate appointment must be assessed through a disability-sensitive lens, ensuring fairness to candidates facing intersectional disadvantage due to disability and social background.

• The respondent’s father, an MTS employee in Delhi Police, passed away in 2013.

• The respondent, having 75% locomotor disability and belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, applied for compassionate appointment in 2015.

• His application was rejected multiple times by the Screening Committee, citing lack of vacancy and low merit ranking.

• The respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which in O.A. No. 773/2020 directed reconsideration. The rejection persisted, leading to further litigation.

• The CAT held that the rejection ignored the RPwD Act’s mandate and ordered reconsideration with due regard to reasonable accommodation.

• The Delhi Police challenged this order before the High Court through the present writ petition.

• The Court noted that the petitioner’s repeated rejections were mechanical and failed to consider the special protections afforded under the RPwD Act.

• It held that “no vacancy” cannot be used as a blanket justification to deny employment when reasonable accommodation and policy flexibility are available.

• The Court emphasized that Section 3, 20, and 21 of the RPwD Act require the State to ensure equal opportunity and reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities.

• It further observed that the respondent’s intersectional disadvantage—being both disabled and from the SC category—demanded heightened sensitivity in decision-making.

• The Court cited precedents including Om Rathod v. DGHS (2024) and Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services (2025), recognizing the RPwD Act as a “super statute” upholding dignity and inclusivity.

• The rejection, based solely on administrative grounds, was found arbitrary and contrary to constitutional and statutory mandates.

• The High Court upheld the CAT’s order and directed the authorities to reconsider the respondent’s application afresh in light of the RPwD Act.

• Sections 3, 20 & 21, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – Equality, non-discrimination, and duty to provide reasonable accommodation.

• Article 14 & 16, Constitution of India – Equality before law and equality of opportunity in public employment.

• Relevant Supreme Court Precedents:

1. Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138 – Nature and limits of compassionate appointment.
2. Om Rathod v. DGHS, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3130 – RPwD Act as a rights-based framework.
3. Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services, 2025 INSC 300 – Interpretation of inclusive equality in employment.
4. Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 290 – Reasonable accommodation as a legal obligation.

Citation: 2025:DHC:XXXXXX

Case: Commissioner of Police & Ors. v. Amit Kumar & Ors.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla & Hon’ble Ms. Justice Madhu Jain

Date of Decision: 28 October 2025

Writ Petition (Civil): No. 14356 of 2025