Supreme Court: The Supreme Court has ordered to give appointment within three months to 100% visually impaired candidates who passed the Civil Services Examination (CSE) in 2009. The court has also expressed displeasure with the Center for not implementing the provisions of the Disabled People Act and not filling the pending vacancies.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal said that there was a “complete failure” on the part of the Government of India in promptly implementing the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (PWD) Act, 1995. The bench said, “Unfortunately, at all stages in this case, the appellant has adopted such an attitude which defeats the very purpose of enacting the law for the benefit of persons with disabilities.
‘If the Act had been implemented then…’
The bench said, “If the appellant had implemented the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 in its true sense, then respondent number 1 (visually impaired candidate) would not have been forced to wander from door to door to get justice.”
In this case, Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, who is 100 per cent visually impaired, had appeared in the Civil Services Examination, 2008 and preferred services in the following order – Indian Administrative Service (IAS), Indian Revenue Service-Income Tax (IT), Indian Railway Personnel Service (IRPS) and Indian Revenue Service (Customs and Excise) (IRS (C&E)).
After a written exam and interview, Shrivastava was denied appointment. He approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which in 2010 directed the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and the Department of Personnel and Training to count the vacant posts covered under the PWD Act, 1995 within six months.
Supreme Court issued instructions
CAT directed the Government of India to inform Shrivastava whether he could be allotted the service. In pursuance of the said order, on September 9, 2011 UPSC informed him that his name did not appear in the merit list of CSE-2008 within the number of vacancies available for PH-2 (Visually Impaired-VI) category. Shrivastava then moved another application before CAT which directed UPSC to accommodate the selected candidates on the basis of their merit in the unreserved/general category in accordance with the office memorandum of December 29, 2005.
Directions were issued that candidates belonging to category six should be selected and appointed against the reserved category, but UPSC informed him in 2012 that he was not eligible for appointment in PH-2 (six) quota. The central government challenged the CAT decision in the Delhi High Court, which dismissed the appeal. The Centre then moved the apex court.
read this also:
