The problems faced by students with disabilities before they reach public employment examinations
Introduction:
When we talk about equality in competitive examinations, we usually think about whether all candidates are given the same question paper, the same time and the same rules. But I started thinking about a slightly different question, are all candidates really starting from the same position?
Imagine two students who want to apply for a government job in the future. Both are equally interested in public service and both work hard. But their educational experiences are different. One may have studied in a school with good resources and regular access to assistive technology. Another student, particularly a student with a disability, may have struggled even to get accessible study materials or examination support. Eventually, both students may have to appear for the same competitive examination. At that point, can we simply say that both have received an equal opportunity because the examination rules are the same for everyone?
This question is what led me to look at the connection between education boards, disability, public employment examinations and administrative law.
My argument in this blog is not that one education board is necessarily better than another. India is a diverse country and having different education boards is not itself a problem. My concern is what happens when differences in educational experiences and disability support continue until the student enters a common competitive examination system.
1. India has more than one education system
Students in India do not all study under the same school board. Depending on where they study and the type of institution, they may be under CBSE, CISCE, a State Board or another recognized system such as NIOS, CAIE and IB. Different boards can have differences in their curriculum, assessment methods, languages and examination practices. There are good reasons for some of these differences. State Boards, for example, have to respond to regional and linguistic requirements. So, I am not suggesting that all education boards should have exactly the same curriculum.
But the question becomes more complicated when we look at students with disabilities. A student with a disability may need additional support during education. This could include accessible learning materials, assistive technology, additional time, a scribe or changes in the examination method.
The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 itself recognizes this need. Section 17 requires the appropriate government and local authorities to take measures for inclusive education. It specifically refers to suitable modifications in the curriculum and examination system, including extra time and the facility of a scribe or amanuensis. This is important because it shows that disability accommodation is not simply a matter of giving someone an unfair advantage. It is about making the examination system accessible.
2. The problem may start much earlier than the competitive examination
When we discuss difficulties faced by persons with disabilities in government examinations, we normally focus on the examination itself.
For example:
- Was a scribe available?
- Was extra time provided?
- Was the examination center accessible?
- Could the candidate use assistive technology?
- Were the examination officials properly trained?
These questions are obviously important.
But I think there is another question which is often missed, what happened before the candidate reached the examination hall?
A student does not suddenly become a competitive-examination candidate. Before appearing for a government recruitment examination, the person has already spent many years in school and higher education. If students with disabilities receive different levels of support during those years, their preparation for later examinations may also be affected.
For example, one student may have regular access to accessible textbooks and assistive technology, while another may depend on family members or teachers to make study materials accessible.
These differences may not be caused by the education board alone. Economic background, location, school infrastructure, family support and availability of trained teachers can also matter. That is why I would frame the issue carefully.
The question is not, “Is CBSE better than State Boards?” The better question is,
“Do differences in educational opportunities and disability-related support create different starting conditions for students who later have to compete in the same public employment examination?”
3. When Equal Treatment Does Not Always Mean Equal Opportunity
Equality is sometimes understood in a very simple way; Treat everybody in exactly the same manner. But disability law makes us think about equality differently. Suppose a candidate has a disability which makes it difficult or impossible for them to write an examination for the entire duration. If the examination authority gives every candidate exactly three hours and refuses to make any adjustment, technically everyone is being treated equally.
But is the result actually equal? The candidate with a disability may not be able to demonstrate their knowledge in those three hours. Giving that candidate additional time does not necessarily mean giving them an advantage. It may simply remove a barrier caused by the examination format. The same can apply to a scribe or assistive technology. This is the idea behind reasonable accommodation.
The RPwD Act defines reasonable accommodation as necessary and appropriate modifications and adjustments, without imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, to ensure that persons with disabilities can enjoy their rights equally with others. So, equality does not always mean giving everyone the exact same thing. Sometimes equality requires different treatment to remove a particular disadvantage.
4. This issue already exists in school examinations
This is not only a theoretical concern. For example, CBSE has provisions for concessions for candidates with disabilities. Its examination materials provide for facilities such as scribes and compensatory time for eligible candidates. The CBSE examination framework also contains specific provisions relating to disability-related concessions and procedures. This tells us something useful. The education system already recognizes that some students cannot fairly participate in a standard examination without appropriate accommodation.
But then another question arises, what happens when that student moves from school education to a public employment examination? The examination authority changes. The rules may change. The procedure for obtaining accommodation may change. The documents required may change. The candidate may once again have to establish their need. This is where I think the problem becomes an administrative law issue.
5. From school to government employment
Consider the journey of a student with a disability. First, the student enters school. Then the student appears for board examinations. After that, the student may go to college or another institution. Eventually, the student decides to apply for a government job. At every stage, a different institution may be responsible. The student therefore has to deal with several different administrative systems. The problem is not necessarily that each authority has its own rules. Some differences may be justified. The problem arises when these rules become inconsistent or when a candidate has difficulty accessing an accommodation that the law is supposed to protect.
For a person without a disability, a small procedural difficulty may be only an inconvenience.
For a person with a disability, the same difficulty can sometimes become a barrier to participation itself.
6. Where does administrative law come into this?
This is the part of the issue that interests me the most. Public employment examinations are generally conducted by public authorities. These authorities make rules, issue notifications, determine procedures, appoint examination centers and deal with candidates’ requests. They are exercising public power. That means their decisions cannot simply be based on administrative convenience. They must operate within the Constitution and the relevant legislation.
- Art 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before the law.
- Art 16 deals specifically with equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.
The RPwD Act also contains provisions relating to equality and non-discrimination, inclusive education and non-discrimination in employment.
Therefore, when an examination authority makes a decision affecting a candidate with a disability, there is a larger legal question, is the decision fair, reasonable and consistent with the rights given to persons with disabilities? This is where principles of administrative law such as non-arbitrariness, fairness, reasonableness and judicial review become relevant.
7. A very important Supreme Court case: Vikash Kumar v. UPSC
One of the most important cases for this topic is Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission. The case concerned a Civil Services Examination candidate who had a condition affecting his ability to write and sought the assistance of a scribe. The dispute was connected with the UPSC’s rules concerning who could receive the facility of a scribe. The Supreme Court’s judgment is particularly important because it examined the relationship between disability, reasonable accommodation and equality.
The Court rejected the idea that rights under the RPwD Act should simply be confined to persons who fall within the category of “benchmark disability.” It emphasized that treating the rights of persons with disabilities as dependent only on the benchmark-disability threshold would undermine the purpose of the Act.
For me, the importance of this case is not only about scribes. It raises a much bigger question,
When an examination rule appears neutral, can it still create an unequal barrier for a person with a disability? That is a classic administrative-law question. It makes us look beyond the wording of a rule and examine its actual effect.
8. Is giving the same rule to everyone really equality?
This is probably the central question of my research. Imagine that an examination authority says,
“The rule is the same for everyone.” That sounds fair. But suppose the rule prevents a particular candidate from participating effectively because of their disability. Should the authority still insist on applying the rule exactly as it stands? This is where substantive equality becomes important. Formal equality focuses on treating people alike. Substantive equality asks whether people are actually able to participate on equal terms.
The RPwD Act’s approach to reasonable accommodation supports this broader understanding of equality. The Act does not merely prohibit discrimination; it also requires steps to enable persons with disabilities to participate in education and employment. Therefore, sometimes the fair decision may be to modify the procedure, rather than simply apply the same procedure to everyone.
9. Balancing Examination Integrity with Equal Opportunity
I do not think it would be correct to say that every difference between education boards is discrimination. There are many reasons why education boards may differ. Similarly, not every difference in examination rules is automatically unconstitutional. An examination authority needs to maintain the integrity of the examination. It has to prevent malpractice and ensure that candidates are assessed according to the requirements of the post. So the real issue is one of balance.
The administration has to protect the integrity of the examination while also ensuring that disability does not become an unnecessary barrier. The question is therefore not, “Should disabled candidates receive special treatment?” It should be, “What accommodation is necessary to make meaningful participation possible without compromising the purpose of the examination?” I think this is a much more useful way of looking at the problem.
10. What should we examine further?
While working on this topic, I think there are several questions which deserve further research.
- Do different education boards provide similar levels of support to students with disabilities?
- Are the examination accommodations provided by different public recruitment authorities consistent?
- Do students have to repeatedly prove their disability and need for accommodation at different stages?
- Are examination officials adequately trained to implement accommodation rules?
- Are existing rules accessible and easy for candidates to understand?
- When an accommodation is refused, is there a quick and effective grievance mechanism?
These questions take the discussion beyond the simple idea of “disabled candidates need concessions.” They allow us to examine how administrative systems actually work.
11. From Legal Rights to Real Opportunities
For me, the most interesting part of this issue is the gap that can exist between having a legal right and being able to exercise that right in practice. The RPwD Act recognizes inclusive education and examination modifications. The courts have also developed the idea of reasonable accommodation. Examination authorities have introduced various facilities. So the legal framework is moving in the right direction. But laws and rules are meaningful only when they can actually be used by the person who needs them. A student should not have to fight through several layers of administration simply to obtain the support needed to demonstrate their ability.
Conclusion
Are students from different education boards really given equal opportunities when they later compete for government employment? As I explored the issue, I realized that the question becomes much more complicated when disability is involved. The problem is not simply about CBSE versus State Boards. It is not simply about scribes or extra time. It is about how different educational and administrative systems come together in the life of one candidate. A student may experience one set of rules in school, another in higher education and another when applying for a government job. If these systems do not provide consistent and accessible support, formal equality may not result in real equality. For that reason, I believe this issue deserves to be studied not only as an education or disability-rights issue, but also from the perspective of administrative law. After all, public examinations are supposed to test a candidate’s knowledge, skills and suitability for public service. They should not unnecessarily test how well a person can overcome administrative barriers. And perhaps the most important question is this, if equality means giving everyone a fair chance, should the administration sometimes do more than simply give eveveryone the same rules?
That is the question I want to explore in the next part of this series.
Sources for this blog
1. Central Board of Secondary Education, examination provisions concerning concessions for candidates with disabilities.
2. Constitution of India, arts. 14 and 16.
3. Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, especially Sec 2(y), 3, 16, 17 and 20.
4. Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission, on 11 Feb, 2021 ( AIR 2021 Supreme Court of India 2447, AIRONLINE 2021 SC 56)