KPSC Exams | Scribe Facility Cannot Be Denied Solely Because Disability Is Below 40% Threshold: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) cannot deny the facility of a scribe to an eligible candidate merely because she does not have a benchmark disability of 40% or more under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 411]Justice Harisankar V. Menon delivered the judgment in writ petition filed by a 21 year old...
The Kerala High Court has held that the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) cannot deny the facility of a scribe to an eligible candidate merely because she does not have a benchmark disability of 40% or more under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 411]
Justice Harisankar V. Menon delivered the judgment in writ petition filed by a 21 year old woman challenging KPSC's refusal to provide her with a scribe for the LD Typist examination.
Although she qualified as a person with disability under Section 2(s) of the RPwD Act, she did not meet the 40% benchmark disability requirement under Section 2(r), on which the KPSC relied to deny the facility.
It was contended that the denial violated the RPwD Act, Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Vikash Kumar v. UPSC (2021) and Gulshan Kumar v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (2025), it was submitted that the benefits are required to be extended even with respect to cases falling under Section 2(s) of the Act. Reliance was also placed on the Government of India's Office Memoranda dated August 10, 2022, and August 1, 2025, which provide for scribe facilities in appropriate cases.
The KPSC argued that while the Union Government had issued guidelines following the Supreme Court's decision in Vikash Kumar, those guidelines were applicable only to examinations conducted by the Union. It further submitted that its own Circular No. 33 of 2022 restricted the grant of scribe facilities to candidates with benchmark disabilities under Section 2(s) of the RPwD Act.
Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Vikash Kumar, the Court observed that the provision of a scribe is a statutory accommodation intended to ensure equality and dignity for persons with disabilities. Restricting the benefit exclusively to persons with benchmark disabilities would defeat the object and spirit of the RPwD Act.
“In my opinion, in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court and in the light of the office memorandum at Ext.P6, the respondent KPSC is not justified in contending that merely on the basis of the contents of Circular No.33 of 2022, an otherwise eligible claim for a scribe is not to be denied to the petitioner herein.” Court held
The Court thus allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to provide benefit of a scribe in examinations for which she submits appropriate applications in the future.
Case Title: Anju Mary Francis v Kerala Public Service Commission and Ors.
Case No: WP(C) 1156/ 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 411
Counsel for Petitioner: C.V. Manuvilsan, O.A. Anju, Alana Mohammed Ali Cholassery
Counsel for Respondent: P.C. Sasidharan (SC- KPSC), Balaprasannan