Case Note & Summary
The respondent no.1, a 100% visually impaired individual, appeared in the Civil Services Examination, 2008 (CSE-2008) and gave preferences for IAS, IRS (IT), IRPS, and IRS (C&E). After clearing the written test and interview, he was denied appointment. He filed Original Application No.2402 of 2009 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), arguing that backlog vacancies under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (PWD Act) were not filled. The CAT directed the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to calculate backlog vacancies. Pursuant to this, UPSC informed respondent no.1 that his name did not appear in the merit list within available vacancies for PH-2 (Visually Impaired) category. He filed another OA No.3493 of 2011, and the CAT directed that candidates selected on merit be adjusted in the unreserved category per Office Memorandum dated 29.12.2005, and that VI category candidates be selected against reserved category. UPSC again informed him he was not qualified. The Union of India challenged the CAT's order in the Delhi High Court, which dismissed the writ petition, leading to the present appeal. The Supreme Court noted that the Union of India failed to implement reservations under the PWD Act from 1996 to 2009, resulting in backlog vacancies. The Court observed that the Union of India claimed 41 backlog vacancies (1996-2009) but only 22 were filled, leaving 19 vacancies. The Court directed the Union of India to redo the exercise of ascertaining backlog vacancies for visually impaired, including considering interchange under Section 36 of the PWD Act. The Union of India filed an affidavit reporting compliance but contended that respondent no.1 could not be accommodated. The Court found that the Union of India's response was unsatisfactory and that respondent no.1 had been fighting since 2009. The Court held that relegating him to the High Court would be unjust. The Court noted that UPSC had accepted that respondent no.1 was ranked 11 after the last recommended candidate of PH-2 (VI) category. The Court directed the Union of India to recalculate backlog vacancies for the period 1996-2008, including IRS (C&CE) and IRS (IT) posts for which no exemption notification under Section 33 proviso was produced, and to consider interchange under Section 36. The Court also directed that if respondent no.1 and candidates above him can be accommodated, the Union of India should do so. The appeal was disposed of with these directions.
Headnote
A) Disability Law - Reservation in Civil Services - Section 33, Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - Backlog Vacancies - The Union of India failed to implement reservation for visually impaired candidates from 1996 to 2009, resulting in backlog vacancies. The court held that in the absence of a notification under the proviso to Section 33 excluding IRS (C&CE) and IRS (IT) from reservation for VI category, reservation must be provided in those categories as well. The court directed recalculation of backlog vacancies and consideration of interchange under Section 36 to accommodate the respondent. (Paras 5, 10) B) Disability Law - Interchange of Vacancies - Section 36, Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - The court directed the Union of India to consider allowing interchange of vacancies among different disability categories as contemplated by Section 36 to accommodate the visually impaired candidate, given the failure to fill backlog vacancies. (Para 5) C) Disability Law - Scribe Facility - Unreserved Category Candidature - The court noted that availing the facility of a scribe for taking the Civil Services Examination does not take away a candidate's right to compete in an unreserved category, as found by the CAT and High Court. (Para 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent no.1, a 100% visually impaired candidate, is entitled to appointment against backlog vacancies under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, and whether the Union of India's failure to implement reservations since 1996 justifies relief despite pending writ petition.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal with directions to the Union of India to recalculate backlog vacancies for visually impaired candidates for the period 1996-2008, including IRS (C&CE) and IRS (IT) posts for which no exemption notification under proviso to Section 33 was produced, and to consider interchange under Section 36 of the PWD Act, 1995. If respondent no.1 and candidates above him can be accommodated, the Union of India is free to do so.
Law Points
- Reservation under Section 33 of PWD Act
- 1995
- Backlog vacancies
- Interchange under Section 36
- Exemption notification under proviso to Section 33
- Scribe facility does not affect unreserved category candidature
