Today, On 9th July, The Supreme Court criticized the centre for its failure to implement the Disability Act and address the backlog of vacancies reserved for disabled individuals. The court expressed disappointment over the government’s lack of action in fulfilling its obligations under the Act. The bench urged immediate measures to rectify the situation and ensure compliance.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court mandated the appointment of a completely visually impaired candidate who successfully passed the Civil Services Examination (CSE) in 2009. The Court criticized the Centre for its failure to uphold the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (PWD) Act and address the backlog of vacancies.
A bench composed of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal noted a “gross default” by the Union of India in swiftly implementing the provisions of the PWD Act, 1995.
The bench remarked,
“Unfortunately, in this case, at all stages, the appellant has taken a stand which defeats the very object of enacting laws for the benefit of persons with disability. If the appellant had implemented the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, in its true letter and spirit, respondent no.1 (visually impaired candidate) would not have been forced to run from pillar to post to get justice,”
The case involved Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, a candidate who is 100 per cent visually impaired. Srivastava participated in the Civil Services Examination in 2008 and listed his service preferences in the following order, Indian Administrative Services (IAS), Indian Revenue Services-Income Tax (IRS (IT)), Indian Railway Personnel Service (IRPS), and Indian Revenue Service (Customs and Excise) (IRS (C&E)).
The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in 2010 instructed the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and the Department of Personnel and Training to address the backlog vacancies in line with the PWD Act, 1995, within a six-month timeframe. Additionally, the CAT mandated that the Union of India inform Srivastava whether a service allocation was possible for him.
Following this directive, on September 9, 2011, the UPSC notified Srivastava that his name did not appear on the merit list for the Civil Services Examination (CSE) 2008, within the number of available vacancies for the PH-2 (Visually Impaired-VI) category.
Srivastava then submitted another application to the CAT, which resulted in an order directing the UPSC to accommodate candidates who had been selected on their own merit in the unreserved/general category, as per the Office Memorandum dated December 29, 2005.
The CAT specified that candidates from the VI category should be selected against the reserved category and appointed accordingly. However, in 2012, the UPSC informed Srivastava that he did not qualify for an appointment in the PH-2 (VI) quota.
The Union of India contested the CAT’s decision in the Delhi High Court, which subsequently dismissed the appeal. Following this, the Centre escalated the matter to the Supreme Court.
Read Also: UPSC Aspirants in Manipur: Delhi High Court Seeks Exam Center Clarification
The Supreme Court ruled that the cases of respondent no.1 (Srivastava) and 10 other candidates from the VI category, who ranked higher than him in the CSE-2008 merit list, should be considered for appointment to the backlog vacancies for PWD candidates, either in the IRS (IT) or another service/branch.
The bench stated,
“Necessary action of giving appointments shall be taken within a period of three months from today. The appointments will be made prospectively. The appointees will not be entitled to the arrears of salary and the benefit of seniority, etc. Only for the purposes of retirement benefits, their services shall be counted from the date on which the last candidate of the VI category in CSE-2008 was given an appointment,”
The apex court emphasized that these directives are issued as a one-time measure under the jurisdiction of Article 142 of the Constitution of India and should not be considered a precedent.