Bail | Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right Under Article 21: PH High Court    |     Postal Department’s Power to Enhance Penalties Time-Barred, Rules Allahabad High Court    |     Tenants Cannot Cross-Examine Landlords Unless Relationship is Disputed: Madras High Court    |     NDPS | Conscious Possession Extends to Vehicle Drivers: Telangana High Court Upholds 10-Year Sentence in Ganja Trafficking Case    |     Aid Reduction Of Without Due Process Unlawful: Rajasthan High Court Restores Full Grants for Educational Institutions    |     Assessment of Notional Income in Absence of Proof Cannot Be 'Mathematically Precise,' Says Patna High Court    |     NCLT's Resolution Plan Overrides State Tax Claims: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Demands Against Patanjali Foods    |     An Agreement is Not Voidable if the Party Could Discover the Truth with Ordinary Diligence: Calcutta High Court Quashes Termination of LPG Distributorship License    |     Independent Witnesses Contradict Prosecution's Story: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquit Accused in Arson Case    |     Merely Being a Joint Account Holder Does Not Attract Liability Under Section 138 of NI Act:  Gujarat High Court    |     Higher Court Cannot Reappreciate Evidence Unless Perversity is Found: Himachal Pradesh High Court Refused to Enhance Maintenance    |     Perpetual Lease Allows Division of Property: Delhi High Court Affirms Partition and Validity of Purdah Wall    |     "Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Videography in Temple Premises Limited to Religious Functions: Kerala High Court Orders to Restrict Non-Religious Activities on Temple Premises    |     Past Service Must Be Counted for Pension Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Affirms Pension Rights for Daily Wage Employees    |     'Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ Does Not Mean Beyond All Doubt: Madras High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Man Convicted of Murdering Mother-in-Law    |    

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.

Similar News