CAG Auditor Disability Appointment: SC Relief

Date:

The Supreme Court on Thursday, March 12, held that government authorities cannot deny appointment to persons with benchmark disabilities by relying on old post-identification lists. It said authorities must follow the latest notification issued under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta delivered the ruling. The Court directed authorities to process the appointment of candidates whose candidature had been rejected under the 2013 list of identified posts for persons with benchmark disabilities. That list did not treat persons with mental illness and Specific Learning Disability (SLD) as eligible for the post of Auditor.

High Court Error in CAG Auditor Disability Appointment Case

The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to consider the 2021 notification issued by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities.

The Court said the 2021 notification replaced the 2013 post-identification list. It also widened reservation eligibility. It included persons with mental illness and specific learning disability for several Group ‘C’ posts, including Assistant (Audit) and Auditor-II.

SSC Recruitment Dispute Over CAG Auditor Disability Appointment

The dispute arose from recruitment conducted by the Staff Selection Commission through the Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2018. The recruitment was for the post of Auditor in the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG).

Two candidates took part in the process. They were Sudhanshu Kardam and Amit Yadav. Sudhanshu Kardam had a benchmark disability of specific learning disability. Amit Yadav had a benchmark disability of mental illness.

The CAG denied them appointment. It said the post of Auditor was not identified as suitable for those disability categories.

2021 Notification Supports CAG Auditor Disability Appointment

The candidates relied on a Gazette Notification dated January 4, 2021. The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment issued it under the RPwD Act.

That notification replaced the 2013 list. It expanded the disability categories eligible for reservation. It identified several Group ‘C’ posts as suitable for persons with mental illness and specific learning disability. These posts included Assistant (Audit) and Auditor-II.

Supreme Court Directions in CAG Auditor Disability Appointment Matter

During the hearing, the Court took note of an additional affidavit filed by the CAG.

In that affidavit, the CAG admitted that, after the 2021 notification, Group ‘C’ posts such as Assistant (Audit) and Auditor-II were suitable for candidates with benchmark disabilities, including mental illness and specific learning disability.

The Court therefore held that authorities could not reject the candidature of the applicants by relying on the earlier post classification.

Supreme Court Directions

While disposing of the petition, the Court directed the SSC to forward the dossiers of both candidates to the CAG within two weeks.

The Court also directed the CAG to consider their appointment against suitable Group ‘C’ posts under the revised notification.

The Bench further clarified that if the vacancies advertised in the 2018 recruitment process had already been filled, the authorities must create supernumerary posts to accommodate the candidates.

Case Details

Cause Title: Sudhanshu Kardam versus Comptroller and Auditor General of India and Ors.
Case no.: SLP(C) No. 009798 / 2026

Also Read: Shabir Ahmed Shah Bail Terror Funding Case: Supreme Court

spot_img

Share post:

Popular

More like this
Related

Supreme Court Acquits Former Clerk in Bribery Case

The Supreme Court has stressed that Bribery Demand Proof...

Supreme Court Examines Shiv Sena Symbol Dispute

The Supreme Court has raised a key question in...

Supreme Court Upholds Excess Pay Recovery From NIT Calicut Teachers

The Supreme Court has upheld the Recovery of Excess...

Higher Marks Cannot Cure Lack of Essential Qualification: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that an Essential Recruitment...