Supreme Court slams Centre for stalling appointment of persons with disabilities to civil services

The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the Central government for its failure to comply with a direction to issue appointment orders to a visually impaired person and other candidates with disability, who had cleared the Civil Services Examination in 2008 [Union of India v. Pankaj Kumar Srivastava and anr]..It also issued a contempt of court notice to the Secretary of Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT)."We grant time till December 19 to show the affidavit for compliance of our July 8 judgment else on December 20 the Secretary will appear in person via Video Conferencing before this court. We issue notice to the Secretary to show cause as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him," the Court ordered.The Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih was hearing the Union government's application seeking extension of time for compliance with the July 8 judgment of the top court.The Court had then directed the Centre to consider appointing Pankaj Kumar Srivastava and ten other candidates with disabilities, who had featured above Srivastava in the 2008 merit list, against backlog vacancies of posts reserved for Persons with Disability (PwD)."Everyday we are seeing that this treatment is being meted out by Union to Persons with Disability. You don't want to appoint the applicants and want to examine him so that you can find something and reject his candidature," a visibly upset Justice Oka remarked..Earlier, the counsel for the candidate informed the Court that appointment order was not issued despite a lapse of five months."This is contempt of this Court. Milords had directed them to consider the appointment and despite the same they have not appointed. The litigation is going on since 2009 and yet no compliance by them," it was submitted.Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) in response said they would be examining the candidates as per the rules prevalent during 2008 and would notify their appointments in due course..The Court then proceeded to grant time till December 19 to the department to ensure compliance with its July 8 judgment. .On July 8, the top court had criticised the Central government for opposing the appointment of the visually impaired man to civil service post, despite several vacancies for PwD candidates remaining unfulfilled.The Bench had then proceeded to invoke its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant relief to Srivastava, who had been litigating before various courts since 2009 for an appointment to the civil services..Srivastava had appeared for the Civil Services Examination in 2008. After undergoing the written and interview stages, he was not appointed to any post. He then moved an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Delhi in 2009. In 2012, the CAT ruled that PwD candidates, who score sufficient marks and are selected from the general category, must not be counted as candidates falling under the reserved category for PwD candidates. The Delhi High Court upheld this CAT order on appeal, prompting the Central government to file another appeal before the Supreme Court. .Meanwhile, the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) told Srivastava that he was not going to be appointed even against the quota earmarked for visually impaired candidates. This was challenged by Srivastava before the Delhi High Court by way of a writ petition. On July 8, the Supreme Court granted relief to Srivastava even as his writ petition was still pending before the High Court.The top court reasoned that there was a gross default in the Union of India's conduct."Respondent no.1 (Srivastava) has been made to run from pillar to post to get an appointment, though there is a large backlog of vacancies in various PWD categories. Therefore, relegating respondent no.1 to the High Court will be unjust. He has been fighting for justice from the year 2009. ... 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 Court had said..[Live Courtroom Exchange]