SC slams Centre over failure to implement provisions of Disability Act
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has ordered appointment of a 100 per cent visually impaired candidate, who cleared the Civil Services Examination (CSE) in 2009, within three months while slamming the Centre for failing to implement provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act and fill backlog vacancies.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal said there is a “gross default” on the part of the Union of India in promptly implementing the provisions of the PWD Act, 1995.
“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 bench said.
In this case, Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, who is 100 per cent visually impaired, appeared in the Civil Services Examination, 2008 and gave four preferences for services 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)).
After having taken the written test and interview, Srivastava was denied an appointment. He then moved the Central Administrative Tribunal which in 2010 directed the Union Public Service Commission and the Department of Personnel and Training to calculate the backlog vacancies following the mandate of the PWD Act, 1995 within six months. CAT also directed the Union of India to inform Srivastava if service could be allocated to him.
Pursuant to the said order, on September 9, 2011, the UPSC informed him that his name did not figure in the merit list of CSE-2008 within the number of available vacancies for the PH-2 (Visually Impaired-VI) category.
Subsequently, Srivastava filed another application before the CAT which directed the UPSC to accomodate candidates selected on their own merit in the unreserved/general category in accordance with the Office Memorandum dated December 29, 2005.
A direction was issued that the candidates belonging to category VI must be selected against the reserved category and be given an appointment but the UPSC informed him in 2012 that he was not qualified for appointment in the PH-2 (VI) quota.
