Vikas Kumar V. Union Public Service Commission &  Others 

Citation	[2011] 11 S.C.R. 281
Date of Judgment	11 February 2021
Court	Supreme Court
Case Type	Civil Case
Appellant	Vikas Kumar.
Respondent	Union Public Service Commission & others
Bench	Justice Dr. Dhananjay Chandrachud,  Justice Indira Banerjee, Justice Sanjiv  Khanna

FACTS OF THE CASE 

The appellant, Vikash Kumar, a civil services aspirant, suffered from a neurological  condition called “Dysgraphia,” also known as ‘writer’s cramp’. Accordingly, while  applying for the 2017 UPSC exam, he applied under the category of person with  locomotor disability and was therefore provided with a scribe for the written test by  the UPSC. In 2018, via a notification, 

The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) issued the CSE 2018 Rules,  describing the manner of conducting the examination and providing that only the  candidates who fall under the categories of: Blindness, Locomotor Disability, and  Cerebral Palsy with a minimum of 40% impairment would be allowed the support  of a scribe. While applying for the Civil Services Exam 2018. 

The appellant thereby declared himself a person with a disability of more than 40%  and requested that UPSC provide a scribe for him during the examination. UPSC  rejected his request, stating that he did not fulfil the criteria specified under the CSE  Rules 2018. 

The applicant was initially declined the disability certificate by the designated  authority at Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, Delhi, which also stated that the disability  was less than 6%. After facing disappointment from the Central Administrative  Tribunal, which rejected the contentions of the applicant and was upheld by the High  Court, the appellant approached the Supreme Court seeking relief. Under the  directions of the Supreme Court, a medical examination of the appellant was  conducted by AIIMS, which concluded that the appellant did suffer from the said  neurological condition; however, his disability did not fall under the category of  “Benchmark Disability” as described under the Rights of Persons with Disability  Act, 2016. 

Issues 

The Supreme Court directed the AIIMS to establish a medical board and evaluate  the appellant’s condition and provide expert opinion on the following question:  

1) Can the appellant be termed a ‘person with a disability under section 2(s) of  the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016?  

2) What is the extent of the appellant’s disability? 

3) Does his disability meet the benchmark disability under section 2(r) and  section 2(zc) of the act? 

ARGUMENTS  

The primary arguments of the appellant were that since the appellant has been  granted a certificate stating that he suffers from Writer’s Cramp and since the  disability is recognised under the Schedule of the RPwD Act, 2016, and now that  the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment has also recognised the said  disability in its notification dated January 14, 2018, the appellant has rights under  the given statute. Moreover, it was his contention that the new rules promulgated  by the DoPT are in violation of Section 20 of the RPwD Act, 2016, as they 

contravene the mandate of providing a reasonable accommodation to the disabled  and are not restricted to those with benchmark disabilities only. The applicant  also alleged violations of Article 14 and Article 16(1) on the ground that scribes  support was provided only to a certain class of persons, i.e., those who suffer 

from Blindness, Locomotor disability, and Cerebral palsy, whereas the other  benefits are given to all the disabled. 

UPSC argument that the governing rules would be those issued by DoPT and that  scribes could be provided only to persons falling under the category of  “Benchmark Disability”. 

The primary argument of the Union was that, as per the new rules, the appellant  is not entitled to get the help of a scribe since the writer’s cramp is not specifically  stated in the schedule and that it is also not a “Benchmark Disability”. However,  since not all medical conditions have been recognised as disabilities, it is for the  examination body to decide on a case-by-case basis whether help through scribe  and compensatory time should be given to the concerned candidates and whether  the requisite of having a disability up to a certain percentage is not mandatory to  avail of certain facilities. 

JUDGEMENT 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned  judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi. The appellant was allowed to entail  the facility of a scribe to appear for the Civil Services Examination or any other  competitive selection examination conducted by the government’s authority. The  Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment was directed to ensure that proper  guidelines are framed to regulate and facilitate scribe facilities for persons with  disability within three months of receiving the certified copy of this judgment. This  has to be done in consultation with the public, specifically with the differently abled and the organizations that represent them. 

REFERENCES 

• Vikash Kumar vs Union Public Service Commission on 11 February, 2021  (indiankanoon.org) 

• SCO Explains: Vikash Kumar v UPSC – Supreme Court Observer  (scobserver.in) 

• 46.-MANAV.pdf (jlrjs.com) 

This article is written by Anuruddha Chauhan of Lloyd Law College, intern at Legal Vidhiya.