The Supreme Court Chastises The Center For Delaying The Hiring Of Disabled People Into Civil Service Positions

Last Updated on December 9, 2024 by Arti Kumari

The Central government was questioned by the Supreme Court on Monday for not following a directive to grant appointment orders to a visually impaired individual and other disabled candidates who passed the 2008 Civil Services Examination .

Additionally, it served the Secretary of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) with a contempt of court notice.

We give the Secretary until December 19 to present the affidavit in order to comply with our July 8 ruling; if not, the Secretary will appear before this court in person by video conference on December 20. The Court ruled, “We give the Secretary notice to provide justification for why contempt proceedings should not be brought against him.

The Union government’s motion for an extension of time to comply with the top court’s July 8 ruling was being heard by the bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih.

In order to address the backlog of openings for positions designated for Persons with Disabilities (PwD), the Court then ordered the Center to take into consideration hiring Pankaj Kumar Srivastava and ten more disabled candidates who had placed higher than Srivastava in the 2008 merit list.

“We witness the Union providing this treatment to people with disabilities on a daily basis. Justice Oka, who was clearly agitated, said, “You don’t want to appoint the applicants and want to examine him so that you can find something and reject his candidature.”

The candidate’s attorney had told the court that even after five months had passed, no appointment order had been issued.

“This is against the court’s rules. They were instructed by Milords to think about the appointment, but they haven’t done so. The lawsuit has been pending since 2009, but they have not complied,” it was said.

In response, the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) stated that they would be reviewing the applicants in accordance with the regulations in effect in 2008 and will promptly announce the appointments.

The Court then went ahead and gave the agency till December 19 to make sure that its July 8 ruling was being followed.

The Central government was criticized by the top court on July 8 for refusing to assign the visually impaired man to a public service position, even though there were still other openings for PwD candidates.

After that, the Bench used its extraordinary authority under Article 142 of the Constitution to provide relief to Srivastava, who had been battling for a civil service appointment in a number of courts since 2009.

In 2008, Srivastava took the Civil Services Examination.

He was not assigned to any position following the written and interview phases. In 2009, he then filed a case with the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), located in Delhi.

The CAT decided in 2012 that PwD candidates who receive enough points and are chosen from the general category should not be considered to be in the reserved category for PwD candidates.

The Central government filed a second appeal with the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court upheld this CAT ruling on appeal.

In the meantime, Srivastava was informed by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) that he would not be appointed, even if he did not meet the quota for candidates with visual impairments.

Srivastava challenged this in a writ suit before the Delhi High Court. Even though Srivastava’s writ case was still ongoing before the High Court, the Supreme Court awarded him relief on July 8.

The top court concluded that the actions of the Union of India constituted a flagrant violation.

“Despite the fact that there is a significant backlog of openings in several PWD categories, Respondent No. 1 (Srivastava) has been forced to run from pillar to post in order to obtain an appointment. Consequently, it would be unfair to send respondent number one to the High Court. Since 2009, he has been battling for justice. The Court stated that respondent no. 1 would not have had to run from pillar to post in order to obtain justice if the appellant had used the PWD Act, 1995 in its true text and spirit.

Case Title : Union of India v. Pankaj Kumar Srivastava And Anr.