Introduction
In Union of India v. Pankaj Kumar Srivastava & Anr. (2024 Latest Caselaw 377 SC), the Supreme Court granted relief to a 100% visually impaired Civil Services candidate who had been denied appointment due to the Union Government's failure to properly implement reservation under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Exercising its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court directed the Government to consider the respondent for appointment against backlog vacancies.
Facts of the Case
The respondent, a 100% visually impaired candidate, appeared in the Civil Services Examination, 2008 and secured a merit position but was denied appointment. He approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which directed the authorities to calculate backlog vacancies reserved for persons with disabilities. Despite repeated proceedings before the CAT and the Delhi High Court, the respondent continued to be denied appointment. During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, it emerged that the Union Government had failed to properly implement disability reservation under the 1995 Act for several years, resulting in substantial backlog vacancies for persons with disabilities, particularly visually impaired candidates.
Issue Before the Supreme Court
Whether the respondent was entitled to appointment against backlog vacancies reserved for visually impaired candidates despite the Union Government's failure to implement reservation under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.
Supreme Court's Findings
The Supreme Court held that: •The Union Government had failed to effectively implement the reservation mandate under Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 for several years, creating a large backlog of vacancies. •No valid notification had been issued under the proviso to Section 33 exempting the Indian Revenue Service (Income Tax) and Indian Revenue Service (Customs & Central Excise) from reservation for visually impaired candidates. •In the absence of such a statutory exemption, reservation for visually impaired candidates had to be extended to those services. •The Government's repeated stand during the litigation defeated the very object of disability rights legislation and compelled the respondent to pursue litigation since 2009. •Considering the exceptional facts, the Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure complete justice by directing consideration of the respondent and similarly placed candidates against backlog vacancies.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court directed the Union Government to consider the respondent and ten other visually impaired candidates ranked above him for appointment against backlog vacancies in the Indian Revenue Service (Income Tax) or any other suitable service within three months. The appointments were directed to operate prospectively without arrears of salary or seniority. However, for retirement benefits, their service was directed to be counted from the date the last visually impaired candidate of the Civil Services Examination, 2008 was appointed. The Court clarified that these directions were issued as a one-time measure under Article 142 and would not operate as a precedent.
Significance of the Judgment
The judgment underscores the obligation of public authorities to faithfully implement statutory reservations for persons with disabilities. It also demonstrates the Supreme Court's willingness to exercise its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to remedy longstanding injustice caused by administrative failure, while clarifying that such relief was confined to the exceptional facts of the case and should not be treated as a precedent.
