Disability reservation in civil services cannot be denied for lack of exemption notification; backlog vacancies must be identified and filled.

The Delhi HC held that disability reservation for blind or low-vision candidates could not be denied merely because no exemption notification had been issued and posts had not been earlier identified; the statutory mandate under the disability law continued to apply, and administrative inaction could not defer compliance indefinitely. It further held that unfilled backlog vacancies in the concerned services had to be carried forward and reconsidered for allocation, so the petitioner was entitled to fresh consideration against reserved vacancies. The Tribunal's contrary view was set aside, and the respondents were directed to identify suitable vacancies and consider appointment with notional seniority, but without arrears of pay.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the absence of a notification exempting the Indian Revenue Service (Income Tax) and the Indian Revenue Service (Customs & Central Excise) from the disability reservation mandate under the applicable law permitted denial of reservation for persons with blindness or low vision. (ii) Whether the petitioner was entitled to reconsideration for allocation and appointment against earmarked backlog vacancies in the relevant services.

Issue (i): Whether the absence of a notification exempting the Indian Revenue Service (Income Tax) and the Indian Revenue Service (Customs & Central Excise) from the disability reservation mandate under the applicable law permitted denial of reservation for persons with blindness or low vision.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required identification of suitable posts and reservation of vacancies for persons with disabilities. The mere assertion that a service was not suitable for a visual disability did not displace the statutory mandate. No exemption notification had been issued under the proviso to Section 33 of the relevant Act, and the later service rules themselves showed identification of posts for the visually impaired in the concerned services. The reasoning in the earlier binding decisions made it clear that implementation of the reservation mandate could not be deferred indefinitely on the ground of administrative inaction or delayed identification of posts.

Conclusion: The denial of reservation for the visually impaired category in the concerned services was not justified and the statutory reservation mandate continued to apply.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to reconsideration for allocation and appointment against earmarked backlog vacancies in the relevant services.

Analysis: The material placed before the Court showed unfilled vacancies and a backlog in the physically handicapped quota in both services. The petitioner's claim that he would have preferred those services higher if reservation had been shown in the vacancy position was accepted. The Tribunal's refusal to interfere on the ground that appointments had already been completed was held to be unsustainable in view of the binding interpretation of the disability reservation provisions and the continuing obligation to carry forward and fill reserved vacancies.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to fresh consideration for allocation to the reserved vacancies and appropriate consequential appointment directions.

Final Conclusion: The impugned Tribunal order was set aside and the respondents were directed to identify suitable physically handicapped vacancies for blind or low-vision candidates and to consider the petitioner for appointment against such vacancy, with notional seniority benefits but without arrears of pay.

Ratio Decidendi: The statutory mandate of disability reservation cannot be defeated by administrative inaction or by the absence of earlier identification of posts, and in the absence of a valid exemption notification the reserved vacancies must be identified, carried forward, and filled in accordance with the law.

---