UNION OF INDIA Vs. PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent no.1 is 100 per cent visually impaired. He appeared in the Civil Services Examination, 2008 (CSE2008). Respondent no.1 gave four preferences for services in the following order: Indian Administrative Services (IAS), Indian Revenue Services-Income Tax (IRS (IT)), Indian Railway Personnel Service (IRPS) and Indian Revenue Service (Customs and Excise) (IRS (C&E)). After having undergone the written test and interview, he was denied an appointment.

(2.) Therefore, the respondent no.1 filed the Original Application no.2402 of 2009 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi (for short, 'the CAT'). The argument before the CAT, inter alia, was that the backlog vacancies in accordance with the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short, 'the PWD Act, 1995') were not filled in. By the judgment dtd. 8/10/2010 of the CAT, the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) were directed to calculate the backlog vacancies following the mandate of the PWD Act, 1995. A time of six months was granted to do the exercise. A direction was issued to the appellant-Union of India, to inform respondent no.1, if service could be allocated to him. Pursuant to the said order, on 9/9/2011, the UPSC informed respondent no.1 that his name did not figure in the merit list of CSE-2008 within the number of available vacancies for the PH-2 (Visually Impaired-VI) category. That led to respondent no.1 filing another Original Application no.3493 of 2011 before the CAT. By the judgment dtd. 30/5/2012, the CAT issued a direction to the UPSC that the candidates selected on their own merits must be adjusted in the unreserved/general category in accordance with the Office Memorandum dtd. 29/12/2005. A direction was issued that the candidates belonging to the VI category must be selected against the reserved category and be given an appointment. Unfortunately, on 30/8/2012, the UPSC informed respondent no.1 that he was not qualified for appointment in the PH-2 (VI) quota. The appellant-Union of India, challenged the judgment dtd. 30/5/2012 by filing a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. By the impugned judgment dtd. 11/10/2013, the writ petition was dismissed, and that is how the appellant-Union of India is in appeal.

(3.) As noted earlier, the UPSC, by the communication dtd. 30/8/2012, informed respondent no.1 that he could not be selected against the PH-2 (VI) quota. He filed a review application before the CAT by pointing out that many vacancies available for VI category candidates remained unfilled, against which he was entitled to the appointment. As the review application was rejected, respondent no.1 has filed a writ petition, which is pending before the High Court of Delhi.