SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High 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