The Supreme Court has directed authorities to accommodate two candidates with benchmark disabilities in suitable Group ‘C’ posts within the Indian Audit and Accounts Department in Comptroller And Auditor General Of India (CAG). The Court issued the direction while disposing of an appeal filed by Sudhanshu Kardam against the rejection of candidature in the Combined Graduate Level Examination recruitment process.

The Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta directed the Staff Selection Commission to forward the dossiers of the candidates to the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India within two weeks so that they may be considered for appointment in posts suitable for their disabilities.

The controversy arose from the recruitment process initiated in 2018 by the Staff Selection Commission for filling various Group ‘B’ and Group ‘C’ posts through the Combined Graduate Level Examination (CGLE-2018). Among the vacancies notified were two posts of ‘Auditor’ in the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General under the “Other Persons with Disabilities” category.

One of the candidates, Amit Yadav, had applied under the PwD category as well as the Other Backward Classes category. He possessed a valid disability certificate indicating 55% disability due to mental illness. After successfully clearing all stages of the examination, including Tier-I, Tier-II and Tier-III, he was recommended for appointment as an Auditor.

However, in September 2021, the CAG’s office returned his dossier to the SSC stating that the post of Auditor had not been identified as suitable for persons suffering from mental illness. Consequently, his candidature was rejected.

Aggrieved by the decision, Yadav approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), invoking the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The Tribunal allowed his plea in January 2023 and directed the CAG to constitute a medical board to assess his fitness for the post.

The CAG challenged the Tribunal’s order before the Delhi High Court, which set aside the CAT’s decision and restored the earlier communication rejecting Yadav’s candidature.

During the pendency of the writ proceedings, Sudhanshu Kardam—another PwD candidate who claimed to be similarly placed and suffering from Specific Learning Disability—sought intervention. Kardam had also challenged the rejection of his candidature before the Tribunal and feared that the High Court’s decision might adversely affect his case.

Following the High Court’s ruling, Kardam approached the Supreme Court seeking relief.

Before the Supreme Court, the candidates relied on a 4 January 2021 notification issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment identifying posts suitable for persons with benchmark disabilities. The notification expanded the scope of reservation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act to include categories such as autism, intellectual disabilities, specific learning disabilities and mental illness.

The Court noted that the updated notification identified certain Group ‘C’ posts as suitable for candidates with disabilities such as specific learning disability and mental illness.

In an additional affidavit filed before the Court, the CAG acknowledged that although earlier identification of posts did not include candidates with these disabilities, the 2021 notification had changed the position. According to the affidavit, the posts of Assistant (Audit) and Auditor-II in Group ‘C’ were now identified as suitable for such candidates.

The CAG also stated that it was willing to accommodate both candidates once their dossiers were forwarded by the Staff Selection Commission, which is the authority responsible for recommendations under the recruitment process.

Taking note of the affidavit, the Supreme Court observed that there was no longer any impediment to accommodating the candidates in suitable posts.

The Court accordingly directed the Staff Selection Commission to forward the dossiers of Sudhanshu Kardam and Amit Yadav to the CAG within two weeks. Upon receiving the dossiers, the CAG must consider them for appointment against appropriate Group ‘C’ posts identified as suitable for their disabilities.

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

It also ruled that their appointments would take effect from the date they join service.

Case Details

Case Title: Sudhanshu Kardam Versus CAG.

Citation: JURISHOUR-336-SC-2026

Case No.: Diary No. 43728/2025

Date: 12/03/2026

Read More: Direct Recruits’ Seniority Begins From Date of Joining, Training Period Counts as Service: Supreme Court