Supreme Court: In an appeal challenging the denial of appointment to the appellant, a visually impaired woman suffering from multiple disabilities to the post of Management Trainee in Coal India Limited, despite having qualified in the selection process, a Divion Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ., held that the appellant was eligible and qualified for appointment as Management Trainee therefore, should have been selected. The Court issued direction for the creation of a supernumerary post for the appellant.
Factual Matrix
The Coal India Limited (CIL), a Maharatna Public Sector Undertaking under the Ministry of Coal, Government of India, issued an advertisement dated 16-12-2019 for recruitment of Management Trainees.
The appellant, a visually impaired candidate with approximately 60% low vision in both eyes and residual functional partial hemiparesis, applied for the post of Management Trainee (Personnel & HR discipline) under the Visually Handicapped (VH) category. She possessed the requisite qualifications, having graduated in Economics and completed an MBA (Human Resources) from Assam Women’s University.
The appellant was selected for interview and by communication dated 01-07-2021 was called for Document Verification (DV) and Initial Medical Examination (IME). She appeared for IME in September 2021 but was declared medically unfit on the ground that she was suffering not only from visual disability but also from residuary partial hemiparesis.
Procedural History
Aggrieved by the declaration of unfitness, the appellant approached Calcutta High Court. The Single-Judge Bench, after a detailed analysis of the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) and relevant notifications, held that respondent-Coal India Limited, being a Public Sector Corporation, could not refuse appointment in the multiple disabilities category, it was incumbent upon respondent to suitably modify recruitment notifications and the IME result dated 23.09.2021 declaring the appellant unfit was liable to be quashed.
However, since the recruitment process of 2019 had concluded, the Court moulded the relief and permitted the appellant to participate in the ensuing recruitment process of 2023 from the stage of IME. One post was also directed to be kept vacant by an interim order dated 27-03-2023.
The Division Bench set aside the Single Judge’s judgment on the ground that the writ petition had been filed after the expiry of the panel, the interim order was passed after the panel had expired and no direction could be issued for consideration of the candidature either in the same recruitment process or the next. Aggrieved, the appellant approached this Court.
Court’s Analysis
The Court noted that the appellant was examined by a Committee of Doctors at AIIMS and the final report dated 01-01-2026 assessed her disability at 57%, which was above the benchmark disability of 40%. After interacting with the appellant, the Court found her to be “a lady of grit and determination. She wants to excel in her field and work hard.”
The Court reiterated that reasonable accommodation is a statutory and constitutional mandate under the RPwD Act and Articles 14, 21 and 41 of the Constitution. Relying on Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Services, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3130, the Court noted that “reasonable accommodation is a fundamental right. It is a gateway right for persons with disabilities to enjoy all the other rights enshrined in the Constitution and the law.” The Court emphasised that a “one size fits all” approach is impermissible and flexibility in addressing individual needs is an essential component of reasonable accommodation.
The Court traced the constitutional foundation of the right to work and observed that Articles 39(a) and 41, though part of the Directive Principles, are “equally fundamental in the understanding and interpretation of the meaning and content of fundamental rights”.
The Court recognised the compounded disadvantage faced by women with disabilities and stated that “here is a case where a single woman is before us who has the urge to succeed notwithstanding the disability she encounters. Can technicalities like expiry of panel for the year come in the way of our doing complete justice? We certainly do not think so.”
Additionally, the Court placed disability rights within the framework of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and ESG frameworks and observed that public sector undertakings must view disability inclusion not merely as a compliance requirement but as part of their constitutional and social obligation.
“True equality at the workplace can be achieved only with the right impetus given to disability rights as a facet of Corporate Social Responsibility.”
Court’s Decision
The Court held that the appellant was eligible and qualified for appointment as Management Trainee. The Court further held that —
-
The Division Bench was not justified in setting aside the judgment of the Single Judge merely because the panel had expired.
-
The appellant was wrongly denied employment pursuant to the 2019 notification.
-
The Single Judge rightly moulded the relief in view of the passage of time.
-
The appellant’s disability was now conclusively assessed at 57%, rendering her eligible under the reserved quota.
The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. The Court clarified that it “passed this order in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, keeping in mind Article 41 read with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution” and issued the following directions —
-
Directed creation of a supernumerary post for the appellant.
-
Directed Coal India Limited to appoint the appellant as Management Trainee.
-
Directed that the appellant be provided a suitable desk job with universal design facilities.
-
Requested the Chairman of Coal India to post the appellant at North Eastern Coalfields, Margherita, Tinsukia, Assam.
[Sujata Bora v. Coal India Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 58, Decided on 13-01-2026]
Buy Constitution of India HERE
