INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court in its judgement dated July 8, 2024 questioned the Central Government for its failure to comply with its order of not appointing the petitioner, Pankaj Kumar Srivastava and 11 other candidates, who had cleared the Civil Service Examination in 2008. The petitioner and other candidates are visually impaired persons. The Supreme Court stated that the Union had always had the practice of searching for something that would not lead to the appointment people with disabilities. According, it issued a contempt of court notice to the Secretary of Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT).
BACKGROUND
This alarming issue started off with Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, a visually challenged person being denied the appointment to a civil service post despite clearing the stages. Aggrieved by this, he filed a case in the Central Administrative Tribunal in Delhi seeking justice. However, CAT ruled that if a person with a disability score above that the required average in the civil service examination, he would be excluded from the PwD reservation category. The same was upheld by the Delhi High Court. The Central Government then appealed the Delhi High Court decision bringing the matter to the Supreme Court.
While these legal battles were occurring, the UPSC denied Srivastava appointment even under the reserved quota for visually impaired persons. Frustrated by this, Srivastava filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court challenging the UPSC refusal. While the petition was still pending, the Supreme Court, bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih, stepped in and granted relief to the petitioner. The Supreme Court put forth that the Central Government acted miserably in handling the petitioner’s case, calling it a “gross default.”
KEY POINTS
- Contempt of Court by the Union- The Union Government failed to comply with the Supreme Court’s order even after the lapse of 5 months. This act was considered to be contempt of court and in response to this, the Supreme Court issued a contempt of court notice to the Secretary of DoPT.
- Irrelevant Medical Examinations- When asked about Srivastava’s appointment, the counsel for the Union of India stated that the petitioner had to be requisitioned to a medical examination. Justice Oka contended that the fact that Srivastava had to be subjected to a medical examination to find a fault in him, is alarming.
- Improper Handling of Cases by the Union- Srivastava had been litigating this case before several courts since 2009. The Supreme Court criticised the Central Government for denying the petitioner a civil service post despite several vacancies for the PwD candidates.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
By December 19, the Court requires the Secretary of DoPT to submit a personal affidavit outlining why he shouldn’t be charged with contempt of court under the 1971 Act. If complete compliance is not obtained by December 20, the Court has scheduled a hearing for that day and directed the Secretary to appear via video conference.
Under Section 36 of the PWD Act, the Supreme Court ordered the Union of India to find and fill backlog positions, including shifting vacancies between categories. It stipulated that within three months, Srivastava and 10 other applicants who were placed higher on the merit list would be given consideration for recruitment.
CONCLUSION
This case reiterates the very important fact that the PwD reservations are implemented for a reason, that is, it should be advanced to people with disabilities regardless of their positions in the merit list. Furthermore, this case highlights the importance of government bodies like the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and the Union of India to act in good faith and adhere to established legal principles.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY BAVYA PRESSAD
