CarpeDiem IAS • CarpeDiem IAS • CarpeDiem IAS •

Representation of Persons with Disabilities in Union Government Jobs

14 Sep 2025 GS 2 Governance
Representation of Persons with Disabilities in Union Government Jobs Click to view full image

Legal Framework

  • Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016:

    • Raised reservation in government jobs from 3% to 4% for persons with benchmark disabilities (≥40%).

    • 1% of quota earmarked for specific categories (e.g., blindness, hearing impairment, locomotor disability, autism, etc.).

Supreme Court Concern 

  • Issue: Disabled persons recruited “on merit” often counted against reserved quota posts, instead of being shifted to general merit list.

  • Consequence: Denies reservation benefits to lower-scoring but eligible disabled candidates.

  • Court asked Centre to clarify: Are “merit” candidates being “pushed upward” to unreserved posts as mandated?

Data (DoPT reports)

  • Overall trend (2011–2022):

    • Representation never exceeded 1.1% of total Union govt. staff.

    • Absolute numbers fluctuated 13,000–22,000 employees with disabilities.

  • Recent DATA :

    • 21,874 disabled employees (1.15% of workforce).

    • Distribution:

      • Group A: 1%

      • Group B: 1.53%

      • Group C (Safai Karmachari): 1.93% (highest)

      • Group C (non-Safai Karmachari): 1.1%

  • Earlier data:

    • 2011: 15,747 (less than 1%).

    • 2016: ~20,000 employees (0.67%).

    • 2018: Crossed 1% for first time (1.13%).

  • Incomplete reporting post-2018:

    • Employee strength considered fell from 30 lakh (2016) to 20 lakh (2018) due to missing ministry data.

Issues Highlighted

  1. Reservation under-implemented despite legal mandate.

  2. Data gaps post-2018 undermine transparency and accountability.

  3. Concentration in lower posts (Group C Safai Karmachari), very low in Group A/B positions.

  4. Systemic exclusion: barriers in recruitment, workplace accessibility, and awareness of provisions.

Implications

  • Reflects implementation deficit in social justice measures.

  • Shows gap between law on paper (4% quota) and ground reality (1.15% actual representation).

  • Raises issues of inclusive governance, equality of opportunity, and judicial monitoring of welfare provisions.



← Back to list