The Supreme Court on Monday (Dec 9) questioned the Central government for its failure to comply with a direction to issue appointment orders to a visually impaired person and other candidates with disability, who had cleared the Civil Services Examination in 2008. It also issued a contempt of court notice to the Secretary of Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT).
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday reprimanded the Central government for its failure to issue appointment orders to Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, a visually impaired individual, along with other candidates with disabilities who cleared the Civil Services Examination in 2008.
The apex court issued a contempt of court notice to the Secretary of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) for non-compliance with its earlier directions.
Contempt Warning and Deadline
“We grant time till December 19 to show the affidavit for compliance of our July 8 judgment else on December 20 the Secretary will appear in person via Video Conferencing before this court. We issue notice to the Secretary to show cause as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him,”
-the Supreme Court stated sternly.
The Bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih, was hearing the Union government’s plea seeking an extension of time to comply with the court’s July 8 directive.
The directive mandated the appointment of Srivastava and ten other candidates with disabilities who ranked higher in the 2008 merit list, against backlog vacancies reserved for Persons with Disabilities (PwD).
Frustration Over Delay
Expressing discontent over the Union government’s conduct, Justice Oka remarked,
“Everyday we are seeing that this treatment is being meted out by Union to Persons with Disability. You don’t want to appoint the applicants and want to examine him so that you can find something and reject his candidature.”
Earlier, Srivastava’s counsel highlighted the inordinate delay, stating,
“This is contempt of this Court. Milords had directed them to consider the appointment and despite the same they have not appointed. The litigation is going on since 2009 and yet no compliance by them.”
In response, the DoPT informed the Court that it would examine the candidates in line with the rules applicable in 2008 and notify their appointments in due course. Despite this, the Court set a final deadline of December 19 for compliance.
July 8 Judgment and Article 142
On July 8, the Supreme Court had criticized the Central government for opposing Srivastava’s appointment despite the presence of several unfilled vacancies for PwD candidates.
Invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Bench granted relief to Srivastava, who had been fighting his case since 2009.
“Respondent no.1 (Srivastava) has been made to run from pillar to post to get an appointment, though there is a large backlog of vacancies in various PwD categories. Therefore, relegating respondent no.1 to the High Court will be unjust. He has been fighting for justice from the year 2009. … If the appellant had implemented the PwD Act, 1995, in its true letter and spirit, respondent no.1 would not have been forced to run from pillar to post to get justice,”
-the Court observed in its ruling.
Prolonged Legal Battle
Srivastava, who took the Civil Services Examination in 2008, was denied an appointment despite clearing all stages of the process. He initially approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in 2009, which ruled in his favor in 2012.
The CAT held that PwD candidates scoring sufficient marks in the general category should not be counted under the reserved PwD category.
Although the Delhi High Court upheld the CAT’s decision, the Central government challenged the order in the Supreme Court. Simultaneously, the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) informed Srivastava that he would not be appointed even under the visually impaired quota, prompting him to file a writ petition in the Delhi High Court.
The July 8 Supreme Court ruling provided significant relief to Srivastava, affirming his right to appointment while his High Court writ petition remained pending.
Implications of the Case
This case underscores the challenges faced by PwD candidates in accessing their rightful opportunities despite clear legal provisions under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights, and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
The Supreme Court’s firm stance emphasizes accountability and compliance with the law, especially in matters impacting marginalized communities.
The December 19 deadline now looms large as a test for the Central government’s commitment to upholding justice and equality for persons with disabilities.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Persons With Disability
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
