IBC Moratorium | Criminal Court Cannot Direct Disbursal Of Corporate Debtor's Assets To Complainant Pending CIRP: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Failure To Implead Company As Accused Renders Complaint Fatally Defective; Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Used To Cure Such Fundamental Defect: Supreme Court 'Last Seen Theory' Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Man In Murder Case 'Every Lawyer Has A Duty To Act Decently': Supreme Court Modifies Suspension Of Advocate For Misconduct In Court Premises Mere Declaration Of 'Transitional Area' Under Article 243-Q(1)(a) Of Constitution Does Not Automatically Convert Rural Area Into Urban Area: Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Externment Order, Terms Non-Compliance With Natural Justice A "Travesty Of Constitutional Guarantees" 'Certiorari Is Not Appellate': Supreme Court Rejects Plea In Decades-Old Co-operative Society Membership Dispute Victim Must Authorize Settlement: Supreme Court Rules Informants Cannot Quash Criminal Cases Without Real Victim's Consent State Cannot Pick And Choose: Supreme Court Restores Right To Retrospective Regularisation For Daily Wage Employees Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment of Plaint After Commencement Of Trial Cannot Be Allowed Without Proving Due Diligence: Supreme Court Discrepancy Between Ocular Testimony And Medical Evidence Creates Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court Order VI Rule 17 & Order VIII Rule 6A CPC | Counter Claim Cannot Be Permitted After Trial Concludes When Party Fails To Pay Court Fees Initially: Supreme Court Nominee Holds Insurance Proceeds In Trust For Legal Heirs; Supreme Court Directs Equitable Distribution Pending Succession Proceedings PC Act | Court Must Impose Statutory Minimum Imprisonment Upon Conviction Under Sections 7 And 13(2): Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Official Caught In Factional Crossfire Retaliatory Counterblasts Cannot Be Used As Weapons Of Harassment: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Over Civil Land Dispute Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Court Must Defer Question Of Ad-Valorem Court Fee To Evidence When Possession Status Is Disputed: Supreme Court Minor Shortfall In Earnest Money Deposit Does Not Vitiate Auction Sale If It Causes No Prejudice: Supreme Court 'Flimsy And Untenable': Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Accused In Gruesome 'Petrol-Burning' Murder Case Parity Is Not A Mechanical Mathematical Formula: Supreme Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Murder Accused Article 142 Constitution of India | Supreme Court May Protect Retiral Benefits Of Employees Whose Caste Certificates Are Invalidated In Exceptional Cases Omission Of CGST Rule 96(10) Applies To All Pending Proceedings: Supreme Court Mere Marking Does Not Prove Contents: Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Law In Testamentary Proceedings Arbitral Tribunal Under Section 16 Of A&C Act Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Determine Arbitrability Of Claims Including Excepted Matters: Supreme Court Arbitration Agreement Can Be Incorporated Into A Personal Guarantee Through A Composite Transaction: Supreme Court

Prolonged Injustice to Disabled Candidates Unacceptable - Orders Retrospective Appointments: Supreme Court

17 September 2024 12:18 PM

By: sayum


Union of India directed to address backlog vacancies for visually impaired under the PWD Act, ensuring justice after prolonged denial. In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has directed the Union of India to appoint visually impaired candidates, including respondent Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, to backlog vacancies under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. The judgment underscores the government's failure to implement disability reservations in civil services for over a decade, compelling the judiciary to step in to ensure justice.

The case revolves around Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, a 100% visually impaired candidate who appeared for the Civil Services Examination (CSE) in 2008. Despite clearing the examination and interview, Srivastava was denied appointment due to the non-implementation of the backlog vacancies mandated under the PWD Act, 1995. This led Srivastava to file multiple applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and subsequent legal battles up to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, through the judgment delivered by Justice Abhay S. Oka, highlighted the egregious delay and systemic failure of the Union of India in implementing the PWD Act's provisions. The Court emphasized that the appellant's failure to reserve and fill vacancies for visually impaired candidates from 1996 to 2009 necessitated judicial intervention.

The Court criticized the Union of India for not issuing an exemption notification under Section 33 of the PWD Act, which could justify the exclusion of certain services from reservations for visually impaired candidates. In the absence of such notifications, the Court ruled that reservations must be applied retrospectively.

Justice Oka noted the clear legal provisions and the evident backlog vacancies, stating, "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."

The judgment extensively discussed Section 33, which mandates a minimum reservation of 3% for persons with disabilities in government jobs, and Section 36, which allows for interchange of vacancies among different categories of disabilities if suitable candidates are unavailable. The Court directed the Union of India to undertake a recalculation of backlog vacancies and consider the visually impaired candidates for these positions.

Justice Oka asserted, "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 Supreme Court's decision is a significant step towards ensuring accountability and adherence to disability rights in India. By mandating the recalculation of backlog vacancies and directing appointments, the judgment sets a precedent for stringent enforcement of disability reservations. This decision not only provides relief to Pankaj Kumar Srivastava but also reinforces the legal framework protecting the rights of disabled individuals in public employment.

Date of Decision: July 08, 2024

Union of India vs. Pankaj Kumar Srivastava & Anr.

Latest Legal News