Persons with Disabilities & Persons with Benchmark Disabilities – distinction for recruitment examinations

Writ Petition for facility of a scribe, compensatory and all other facilities to the petitioner diagnosed with Focal Dystonia – a type of Writer’s Cramp – classified as a chronic neurological condition.   Under the RPwD Act of 2016, he was assessed with 25% permanent disability.  However, a person with benchmark disability means a person with 40% disability and type recognized by the Act.

National Institute of MHNANS at Bangalore certified his need for a scribe at the examinations.  He was, however, not provided facilities available to PwD candidates since they were restricted only to the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities.

In the application forms of recruitment, there is no clause of facilities for PwD candidates but available only to PwBD.

HELD that the artificial distinction between the persons with disabilities and persons with benchmark disabilities is illegal and unreasonable.  The PwD candidates are entitled to the facilities of a scribe, compensatory time and other facilities available to PwBD in writing their examinations.

It was considered appropriate to direct the authorities to incorporate various aspects as given in para 19 of the judgment and including one to

* Provide some time prior to examination to allow PwD candidates to familiarize themselves with the scribe to ensure that there is a sense of comfort while communicating with the scribed during the examination.

*  Offer PwD candidates a choice of examination modes, such as scribe, braile, large print, audio recording of answers, etc;

* Take penal action against the authorities / officials who fail to follow the guidelines;

* Ensure strict compliance of the letter and spirit of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Vikash Kumar and Avni Prakash cases as well as the provisions of the RPwD Act with a special focus on “reasonable accommodation”.

Judgment dated 3.2.2025 of the Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition [Civil] No.1018 of 2022 of Gulshan Kumar Vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection and others