Union of India vs. Pankaj Kumar Srivastava [July 08, 2024]
Citation: 2024 INSC 471; Supreme Court of India, Bench: Abhay S. Oka, Pankaj Mithal
Background and Facts
Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, a 100% visually impaired candidate, successfully cleared the Civil Services Examination (CSE) in 2008. Despite his merit, Srivastava was denied appointment due to the Union of India's (UOI) failure to fill backlog vacancies reserved for persons with disabilities (PWD) as mandated by the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (PWD Act). Srivastava approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which directed the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to recalculate and fill backlog vacancies, but the authorities failed to provide him an appointment, leading to prolonged litigation.
Legal Proceedings
CAT: Directed UPSC/DoPT to identify and fill backlog vacancies for visually impaired candidates and consider Srivastava for appointment.
Delhi High Court: Dismissed UOI’s writ petition, upholding CAT’s order in favor of Srivastava.
Supreme Court: The UOI contended that certain services (IRS - Customs & Excise, IRS - Income Tax) were excluded from reservation for visually impaired candidates. However, the Court found no notification had been issued under Section 33 of the PWD Act to that effect, and thus, reservation must apply to these services as well.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Court found that the UOI had failed to comply with the PWD Act’s mandate from 1996 to 2009, resulting in 41 backlog vacancies, including five for the visually impaired category.
The Court criticized the UOI for persistently taking positions that undermined the purpose of the PWD Act and for forcing candidates like Srivastava to litigate for their rights.
The Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice, directing the UOI to appoint Srivastava and similarly situated candidates to appropriate services against the backlog vacancies.
The Court clarified that visually impaired candidates who qualified on merit must be adjusted in the general/unreserved category, ensuring reserved posts are filled by those who actually need the reservation.
Impact and Compliance
Following the judgment, the DoPT was compelled to issue an appointment letter to Srivastava and ensure his pay and service conditions were at par with his batchmates, though without retrospective promotions or dues.
The Supreme Court monitored compliance, even issuing a contempt notice to the DoPT Secretary for delays, which was dropped only after full compliance and appointment of Srivastava.
Significance
The judgment is a landmark in enforcing disability rights, ensuring backlog vacancies for persons with disabilities in civil services are filled as per the law.
The Court’s intervention under Article 142 underscores its commitment to substantive equality and the effective implementation of social justice legislation.
The case sets a precedent for transparent, fair, and timely implementation of reservation policies for persons with disabilities, preventing authorities from diluting statutory mandates through administrative inaction or delay.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India vs. Pankaj Kumar Srivastava is a significant affirmation of the rights of persons with disabilities, compelling the government to honor its statutory obligations and reinforcing the judiciary’s role in upholding social justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments