SUJATA BORA versus COAL INDIA LIMITED & ORS.

Citation: [2026] 1 S.C.R. 590 · Decided: 13-01-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 1 S.C.R. 590 : 2026 INSC 53
Sujata Bora 
v. 
Coal India Limited & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 120 of 2026)
13 January 2026
[J.B. Pardiwala* and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the appellant was wrongly denied employment, despite 
having qualified for the interview, and declared unfit on the ground 
that she had multiple disability but had applied as a visually 
handicapped candidate (since the notification advertising the 
vacancies did not provide for “multiple disability”); intersectionality 
of disability with gender justice.
Headnotes†
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – “reasonable 
accommodation” – Constitution of India – Art.41 r/w 14 & 21; 
Art.142 – Advertisement was published by Coal India Limited 
(CIL) for recruitment of Management Trainees – Notification 
advertising the vacancies did not provide for “multiple 
disability” and the appellant applied for the post under the 
Visually Handicapped (VH) category – Appellant was denied 
employment despite having qualified for the interview on 
the ground that she was not only suffering from visual 
disability but also from residuary partial hemiparesis – Writ 
petition filed by Appellant – Single Judge found that CIL, 
a Public Sector Corporation could not refuse appointment 
in the multiple disabilities category and quashed the Initial 
Medical Examination (IME) result however, since, the 
appellant had approached the Court after the completion 
of the recruitment process, she was allowed to participate 
in the ensuing recruitment process (2023) in the reserved 
category for persons with disability – Order set aside by 
Division Bench – Challenge to – All India Institute of Medical 
Sciences directed to constituted a Board of experts and for 
co-opting Dr. Satendra Singh working on disability rights for 
* Author
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 
591
Sujata Bora v. Coal India Limited & Ors.
a long time, for assessment as regards disability – Report 
submitted, according to which the appellant suffers 57% of 
disability, which is above the benchmark disability, i.e., 40%:
Held: Appellant at the first instance was wrongly denied her 
employment pursuant to the 2019 notification – The Single Judge 
of the High Court moulded the relief in view of the passage of time 
and directed her to be considered from the IME stage for the 2023 
recruitment – By interim order passed earlier, one post was also 
kept vacant – On facts, Division Bench of the High Court was not 
justified in setting aside the judgment of the Single Judge merely 
because the panel had expired – The report from AIIMS finds 
her with 57% disability, rendering her eligible for the appointment 
under the reserved quota – Appellant qualified for the interview 
in 2019 selection and was denied employment due to no fault of 
hers – Her disability exceeded the benchmark disability and only 
because the notification advertising the vacancies did not provide 
for “multiple disability” and the appellant applied as a visually 
handicapped candidate, she was denied employment – Order of 
Division Bench of High Court set aside – A supernumerary post 
be created for the appellant – Chairman of Coal India to provide 
a suitable position/posting commensurate with the ability of the 
appellant, and in such circumstances, she be provided a suitable 
desk job with a separate computer and keyboard, as per universal 
design as defined u/s.2(ze) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 
Act, 2016 – Chairman of CIL to post the appellant at North Eastern 
Coalfields Coal India Ltd., having an office at Margherita, Tinsukia, 
Assam – Order passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of 
this case, in view of Art.41 r/w 14 & 21 of the Constitution and in 
exercise of power u/Art.142.[Paras 8, 29-31]
Constitution of India – Article 142 – Intersectionality of 
disability with gender justice:
Held: In the present case, a single woman is before this Court 
who has the urge to succeed notwithstanding the disability she 
encounters – Technicalities like expiry of panel for the year or the 
factum of interim order reserving a vacancy having come to be 
passed after the expiry of panel cannot come in the way of our 
doing complete justice – Especially when the denial of employment 
in 2019 was no fault of her’s. [Para 23]
592
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Disability rights – Corporate Social Responsibilty And Disability 
Rights – UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights 
(Guiding Princip

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.