Sudhanshu Kardam v. CAG & Ors., 2026 INSC 232
Citation: 2026 INSC 232
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Date of Judgment: March 12, 2026
Facts:
The case arose from a recruitment process for the post of ‘Auditor’ (Group ‘C’) under the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) through the Staff Selection Commission’s Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2018 (SSC CGLE-2018). Respondent No. 3 (R-3), Amit Yadav, a person with “mental illness” (55% disability), qualified and was recommended for the post. However, his candidature was rejected by the CAG on the ground that the post of ‘Auditor’ was not identified as suitable for persons with benchmark disabilities (PwBD) suffering from ‘mental illness’. R-3 challenged this rejection before the CAT, which ruled in his favor. The CAG challenged the CAT’s order before the Delhi High Court, which set aside the CAT’s order and restored the rejection. The appellant, Sudhanshu Kardam, a PwBD candidate with Specific Learning Disability (SLD) who was also affected by the same rejection, sought to intervene and subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court.
Key Development:
During the proceedings, the Supreme Court took note of a crucial Gazette Notification dated January 4, 2021, issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. This notification superseded the 2013 list and explicitly identified Group ‘C’ posts like ‘Auditor’ as suitable for persons with benchmark disabilities, including ‘mental illness’ and ‘specific learning disability’. Based on this, the CAG filed an affidavit stating its willingness to accommodate both candidates in suitable Group ‘C’ posts, subject to receiving their dossiers from the SSC.
Held:
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal, directing the SSC to forward the dossiers of both candidates to the CAG within two weeks. Upon receipt, the CAG was directed to consider them for appointment against suitable Group ‘C’ posts. If the originally advertised posts were already filled, the respondents were directed to create supernumerary posts to accommodate both candidates. Their appointments would take effect from the date of joining.
Law Points
- Dynamics of Law and Identification of Posts: The suitability of a post for persons with benchmark disabilities is not static. It is governed by notifications issued by the competent authority (Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment) under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016. The 2021 notification superseded the 2013 list and is the governing document for determining post suitability. [Para 11, 17]
- Prospective Effect of Beneficial Notification: A notification that identifies more posts as suitable for PwBDs, being beneficial and substantive in nature, should be applied to pending recruitment processes to give effect to the legislative intent of inclusivity under the RPwD Act, 2016. The Court applied the 2021 notification to the 2018 recruitment process. [Para 18, 19]
- Duty of the State as a Model Employer: As a model employer, the State and its instrumentalities (like the CAG) are expected to act with objectivity and facilitate the appointment of PwBD candidates once the legal position (post-suitability) is clarified, rather than taking a rigid or adversarial stance. [Para 6 of the CAG affidavit, read with Para 21 of the judgment]
- Remedy of Supernumerary Posts: Where the regular vacancies for a particular recruitment cycle have already been filled, the appropriate remedy to ensure that justice is done to eligible PwBD candidates is the creation of supernumerary posts. This ensures that the rights of the candidates are not defeated by the delay in the legal process. [Para 21]
- Cooperation Between Recruiting Agencies: The judgment highlights the need for seamless cooperation between different government agencies (like the SSC and the CAG) to implement court orders and facilitate the appointment of rightful candidates. The SSC was directed to forward the dossiers without delay to enable the CAG to make the appointment. [Para 21]
