SUPREME COURT DIRECTS UNION OF INDIA TO CLEAR BACKLOG VACANCIES FOR VISUALLY IMPAIRED IN CIVIL SERVICES

Introduction

In a landmark judgment of Union of India vs. Pankaj Kumar Srivastava & Anr. [Civil Appeal no. 3303 of 2015] vide Order dated 08/07/2024, the Supreme Court of India has directed the Union of India (UOI) to rectify the backlog of vacancies for visually impaired candidates in the civil services, addressing a long-standing issue of non-compliance with the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 (PWD Act). This judgment is a significant step towards ensuring the rights and inclusion of persons with disabilities in India’s public service sector.

Case Background

The case began with Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, a 100% visually impaired candidate, who appeared for the Civil Services Examination (CSE) in 2008. Srivastava successfully cleared both the written examination and the interview, a remarkable achievement considering his disability. However, despite his success, he was denied an appointment. This denial prompted Srivastava to file an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), arguing that the backlog vacancies mandated by the PWD Act were not filled, thus denying him his rightful position.

Srivastava’s claim was rooted in the provisions of the PWD Act, which mandates a certain percentage of reservations for persons with disabilities in public employment. The act aims to ensure equal opportunities and protect the rights of individuals with disabilities. Srivastava’s contention was that the UOI had failed to implement these reservations in the civil services from 1996 to 2009, leading to a significant backlog of vacancies.

CAT’s Initial Decision

In response to Srivastava’s Application, the CAT directed the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to calculate the backlog vacancies within six months. The Tribunal also instructed these bodies to inform Srivastava if he could be allocated a service based on the recalculated vacancies. This decision was a critical step towards addressing the systemic failure in implementing the PWD Act.

However, the UPSC later informed Srivastava that his name did not appear in the merit list within the available vacancies for the visually impaired category. This response was unsatisfactory for Srivastava, who believed that the calculation and allocation process had not been conducted fairly or transparently.

Legal Battle Continues

Undeterred by the setback, Srivastava filed another Original Application with the CAT. This time, the Tribunal issued a directive to the UPSC, emphasizing that candidates selected on their own merits must be adjusted in the unreserved/general category. This adjustment was essential to ensure that the reserved vacancies for the visually impaired were not unfairly reduced by including meritorious candidates who did not require the reservation.

Despite the CAT’s directive, the UPSC maintained that Srivastava was not qualified for the visually impaired quota. This stance led to the UOI filing a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. The High Court, however, dismissed the petition, siding with Srivastava and upholding the CAT’s decision. This dismissal was a victory for Srivastava, but the legal battle was far from over.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The case ultimately reached the Supreme Court, where it was thoroughly examined. The Supreme Court observed that the UOI had failed to give effect to the reservations under the PWD Act in Civil Services from 1996 to 2009. This failure resulted in 41 backlog vacancies, with 5 specifically allocated for the visually impaired. The Court found that the UOI’s contention that certain categories, such as IRS (Customs and Excise) and IRS (Income Tax), were excluded from reservations for the visually impaired was not supported by a necessary notification as required under Section 33 of the PWD Act.

The Court’s observations were critical of the UOI’s handling of the reservations. It highlighted the systemic neglect and the lack of proper implementation of the PWD Act, which had adversely affected the rights of persons with disabilities, like Srivastava, who sought equal opportunities in public employment.

Directions from the Supreme Court

In its judgment, the Supreme Court directed the UOI to recalculate the backlog vacancies for the visually impaired, considering the provisions for interchange as contemplated by Section 36 of the PWD Act. This section allows for the interchange of vacancies among different categories of disabilities if a suitable candidate is not available in a particular category. The Court emphasized the necessity of issuing a notification if exemptions were claimed under Section 33 of the PWD Act, which allows for the exclusion of certain services from the purview of reservations.

The Court’s directions were aimed at ensuring that the UOI fulfills its obligations under the PWD Act and rectifies the backlog of vacancies for visually impaired candidates in the Civil Services. The Court further directed the UOI to take necessary actions with regards to giving appointments within a period of 3 months from the said order. The appointees will be appointed prospectively and will not be entitled to the arrears of a salary and the benefit of seniority, and only for the purpose of retirement benefits their services shall be granted from 2008, on which the candidate was given appointment. The Hon’ble Court in its judgement further clarified that these directions issued are a one-time measure and the same should not be taken in account of a precedent.

Further Developments

Following the Supreme Court’s judgment, an additional affidavit was filed by the UOI, indicating an attempt to comply with the Court’s directions. The affidavit detailed the steps taken to recalculate the backlog vacancies and the measures implemented to address the reservations for the visually impaired.

However, the Supreme Court remained vigilant in ensuring that the directives were fully implemented. The Court highlighted the unjust treatment of Srivastava, who had been seeking justice since 2009, and the UOI’s continued failure to implement the PWD Act provisions. The Court’s scrutiny ensured that the UOI’s compliance with the judgment was thorough and effective.

Impact on the Civil Services and Disability Rights

This judgment has far-reaching implications for the Civil Services and the broader landscape of disability rights in India. The Supreme Court’s decision to address the backlog of vacancies for visually impaired candidates marks a significant step towards equality and inclusion in India’s Public Service Sector.

The judgment reinforces the principles of the PWD Act, which aims to provide equal opportunities and protect the rights of persons with disabilities. Moreover, the judgment highlights the importance of transparency and accountability in the implementation of reservation policies. It underscores the need for proper notifications and adherence to statutory provisions to ensure that the rights of persons with disabilities are not compromised.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India vs. Pankaj Kumar Srivastava & Anr. is a significant step towards equality and inclusion in India’s Civil Services. This decision is a vindication of Pankaj Kumar Srivastava’s fight for justice and a testament to his resilience and determination to seek equal opportunities. The decision not only addresses Srivastava’s grievances but also paves the way for greater inclusivity and fairness in India’s Civil Services.

 

Editor’s Comments: The Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 (PWD Act) protects disabled persons. Disabled persons are persons having (i) Blindness; (ii) Low vision; (iii) Leprosy-cured; (iv) Hearing impairment; (v) Loco motor disability; (vi) Mental retardation; (vii) Mental illness. Obviously, these disabled people face lots of challenges while competing in the main stream society. The law provides a 3% reservation for such disabled people to give them an equal opportunity to compete for prestigious jobs like the Indian Civil Services. The fact that though Shrivasta was successful he had to approach the Court shows the unfairness in the system. The Apex Court’s judgement comes as a real victory for disabled people who have to struggle even more than normal people. Recently the struggle of such blind people was very well portrayed in a movie called “Srikanth” based on a true story, where the protagonist had to fight several battles before reaching MIT.

Ashita

Associate

The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services.

 

Edited by:

Sushila Ram Varma (Advocate)

The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services