Supreme Court Directs Appointment of Visually Impaired Candidates in Civil Services Backlog Vacancies: Union of India vs. Pankaj Kumar Srivastava (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 08 July 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 471

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Pankaj Mithal, J.

Can the government deny appointments to visually impaired candidates despite a backlog of vacancies? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent judgment, highlighting the failure of the Union of India to implement reservation policies for persons with disabilities. This case underscores the importance of ensuring equal opportunities for all citizens, regardless of their disabilities. The bench comprised Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal.

Case Background

The case revolves around Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, the respondent no. 1, who is 100% visually impaired. He appeared for the Civil Services Examination in 2008 (CSE-2008), listing 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)) as his preferences. Despite clearing the written test and interview, he was denied an appointment.

This denial led to the respondent filing an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), arguing that backlog vacancies for persons with disabilities, as mandated by the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (PWD Act, 1995), were not being filled. The CAT directed the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to calculate these backlog vacancies. However, even after this, the respondent was not given an appointment, leading to further litigation.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) initially directed the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to calculate backlog vacancies for persons with disabilities. When this did not result in an appointment for the respondent, the CAT further directed that candidates selected on their own merit should be adjusted in the unreserved category, and candidates from the Visually Impaired (VI) category should be selected against the reserved category. The Union of India challenged this order in the Delhi High Court, which dismissed their writ petition. This led to the Union of India appealing to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core of this case revolves around the interpretation and implementation of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (PWD Act, 1995). Key provisions include:

• Section 33 of the PWD Act, 1995: This section mandates that every appropriate government shall reserve at least 3% of vacancies for persons with disabilities, with 1% each for blindness or low vision, hearing impairment, and locomotor disability or cerebral palsy, in identified posts. The section reads as follows:
  
  “33. Reservation of Posts – Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less than three per cent. for persons or class of persons with disability of which one per cent. each shall be reserved for persons suffering from-
  i. blindness or low vision;
  ii. hearing impairment;
  iii. locomotor disability or cerebral palsy, in the posts identified for each disability:
  Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any department or establishment, by notification subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section.”
• Section 36 of the PWD Act, 1995: This section allows for the interchange of vacancies among the three categories of disabilities if suitable candidates are not available in one category.

Arguments

Appellant (Union of India):

• The Union of India argued that, even after re-evaluating the vacancies as per the Supreme Court’s order, respondent no. 1 could not be accommodated.
• They contended that a meeting on 23rd November 2017 recommended that vacancies in IRS (IT) and IRS (C&E) could not be reserved for the VI category.
• They stated that an exemption notification under Section 33 of the PWD Act, 1995, is only needed when none of the disability categories are suitable for a post. Since locomotor and hearing disabilities were accommodated in IRS (IT) and IRS (C&E), no exemption was required for the VI category.
• They expressed inability to interchange vacancies under Section 36 of the PWD Act, 1995, stating there were no non-merit candidates in the VI category from CSE-2006 to 2008.

Respondent no. 1:

• The respondent argued that the backlog of vacancies must be calculated from 1996 to 2008.
• They stated that no exemption under Section 33 of the PWD Act, 1995, was granted to All India Civil Services/Central Services for which recruitment is conducted by the UPSC.
• They submitted that at least 42 vacancies were available for VI candidates in 2008, and the respondent should have been appointed.
• They argued that availing a scribe for the Civil Services Examination does not disqualify a candidate from competing in the unreserved category.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:

1. Whether the Union of India had correctly implemented the reservation policy for persons with disabilities, specifically the visually impaired, in civil services.
2. Whether the Union of India was justified in excluding the visually impaired from certain services like IRS (IT) and IRS (C&E).
3. Whether the Union of India should have considered interchange of vacancies under Section 36 of the PWD Act, 1995.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995: Specifically, Sections 33 and 36, which mandate reservation for persons with disabilities and allow interchange of vacancies, respectively.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995: The Court emphasized the importance of strict implementation of the provisions of the PWD Act, 1995 to ensure the rights of persons with disabilities. It highlighted the failure of the Union of India to adhere to the provisions of Section 33 and Section 36 of the Act.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the following factors:

• Failure to Implement the PWD Act, 1995: The Court was critical of the Union of India’s failure to implement the reservation policy for persons with disabilities, especially the visually impaired, as mandated by the PWD Act, 1995.
• Lack of Exemption Notification: The Court noted that the Union of India did not produce any notification exempting IRS (IT) and IRS (C&E) from reservation for the VI category, as required by the proviso to Section 33 of the PWD Act, 1995.
• Prolonged Litigation: The Court expressed concern that the respondent had been fighting for justice since 2009, and relegating him to the High Court would be unjust.
• Availability of Vacancies: The Court noted that there were enough vacancies to accommodate the respondent and other visually impaired candidates, but the Union of India failed to take appropriate action.

Logical Reasoning:

Judgment

The Supreme Court, exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, directed the following:

1. The cases of respondent no. 1 and the other 10 candidates belonging to the VI category who are above him in the merit list of CSE-2008 shall be considered for appointment against the backlog vacancies of PWD candidates either in IRS (IT) or in other service/branch.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. The Court clarified that these directions are a one-time measure and shall not be treated as a precedent.

The Court emphasized the failure of the Union of India to implement the PWD Act, 1995, in its true letter and spirit, which forced respondent no. 1 to run from pillar to post to get justice. The Court stated:

“In this case, the affidavits filed by the appellant-Union of India bring a sorry state of affairs on record . The appellant failed to implement the provisions of the PWD Act, 1995.”

The Court further noted:

“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.”

The Court also observed:

“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.”

Key Takeaways

• The Union of India must strictly adhere to the provisions of the PWD Act, 1995, and ensure reservation for persons with disabilities in all applicable services.
• Exemption from reservation for persons with disabilities can only be granted through a notification as per the proviso to Section 33 of the PWD Act, 1995.
• Interchange of vacancies among different categories of disabilities must be considered if suitable candidates are not available in one category, as per Section 36 of the PWD Act, 1995.
• This judgment sets a strong precedent for ensuring equal opportunities for persons with disabilities in government jobs.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

1. Appointment of respondent no. 1 and 10 other visually impaired candidates against backlog vacancies.
2. Completion of the appointment process within three months.
3. Appointments to be prospective, without arrears of salary or seniority benefits.
4. Retirement benefits to be calculated from the date of appointment of the last VI category candidate in CSE-2008.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not Applicable

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Union of India must strictly adhere to the provisions of the PWD Act, 1995, and ensure reservation for persons with disabilities. The judgment clarifies that exemption from reservation can only be granted through a notification as per the proviso to Section 33 of the PWD Act, 1995. This decision reinforces the importance of equal opportunities for persons with disabilities and emphasizes the government’s responsibility in implementing disability laws. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment reinforces the importance of strict adherence to the existing law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India vs. Pankaj Kumar Srivastava & Anr. is a significant step towards ensuring the rights of persons with disabilities. The Court directed the appointment of visually impaired candidates against backlog vacancies, criticizing the Union of India’s failure to implement the PWD Act, 1995. This decision underscores the importance of strict adherence to disability laws and sets a precedent for ensuring equal opportunities for all citizens, regardless of their disabilities.