TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 885
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....E'), 2011 was conducted by the Union Public Service Commission ('UPSC'). Background facts 3. The Petitioner participated in the CSE, 2011 and secured the rank of 780. He is a person suffering from low vision ('LV'). In his application, the Petitioner indicated the Indian Administrative Service ('IAS') as his 1st preference, the Indian Audit & Accounts Service, Group 'A' ('IAAS') as his 2nd preference, the Indian Civil Accounts Service, Group 'A' ('ICAS') as his 3rd preference, and so forth. He put down the Indian Information Service (Junior Grade) Group A ['IIS (JG)'] as his 12th preference, and the IRS (IT) and IRS (C & CE) as his 17th and 18th preferences respectively. Based generally on his overall merit position, and more particularly in terms of his merit position in the Blind/Low Vision ('B/LV') category, the Petitioner was allotted the IIS (JG). Case of the Petitioner 4. The case of the Petitioner is that since no reservation was indicated in the IRS (IT) and the IRS (C & CE) for candidates belonging to the B/LV category, the Petitioner gave lower preferences to these two services. The case of the Petitioner before the CAT was based on Sections 32 and 33 of the Person....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the IRS (IT). Enclosed with the said reply was a copy of the minutes of the meeting held on 23rd November, 2007 at the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment which noted that while discussing, inter alia, the issue of the allotment of services to persons belonging to persons with disabilities, it has been decided that: "(a) All the 19 Civil Service should provide reservation to persons with locomotor, hearing impaired and visual disabilities as provided in Persons with Disabilities Act. Considering the nature of jobs performed in IRS (IT) and IRS (C&CE), these services were not considered suitable for persons with visual disabilities. The services should however allocate 1½ % of vacancies each to persons with locomotor and hearing disabilities. Considering the specific requirement of IAAS, persons with both legs affected (BL) may not be suitable for the service due to extensive touring involved in the jobs assigned to the officers in the service. Further, blind may also not be presently suitable for the service since accounts maintenance in most of the field offices is not yet computerized. CCA of IAAS however, should provide reservation to persons with disabilities....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld not be allocated to either of these services. In a tabular column, the manner of allocation of services to the partial blindness ('PB') category candidates was given as under: Name S/Sh & category Rank Functional Classification Service allocated Gagandeep Singh (Gen) 25 PB IAS Ashish Bhargava (Gen) 397 PB IAS Amit Goyal (Gen) 778 PB IRAS Dileep Kumar Shukla (Gen) 780 PB IIS Senthil R (OBC) 792 PB IOFS 13. It was pointed out that IRS (IT) and IRS (C & CE) were not specified as providing reservation for visually impaired persons. Impugned order of the CAT 14. The CAT, in the impugned order, proceeded on the basis that the Department of Revenue, which is the CCA for IRS (IT) and IRS (C & CE) "has enjoyed exemption from allocating any vacancy for the B/LV sub-category and accordingly a Gazette Notification had been issued. The Revenue Department has made such an assertion in its reply to the applicant's RTI query, vide Annexure A-4 letter dated 17.05.2013." 15. At the same time, the CAT noted that from the letter dated 18th November, 2016 of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, it appeared that no exemption had b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rted to other categories, the same could not be an excuse for denying relief to those persons from the PH category who approached the CAT for relief. 19. The Petitioner pointed out that an argument similar to the one advanced by the Respondents in the present case, viz., that since all selected candidates had been allocated various services judicial intervention was not warranted, had been negatived by this Court in its judgment dated 29th May, 2009 in W.P.(C) 5429/2008 (Ravi Prakash Gupta v. Union Public Service Commission). This judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Ravi Prakash Gupta (supra). 20. The precise grievance of the Petitioner is about the failure of the Respondents to make reservations for visually-impaired candidates in the IRS (IT) and the IRS (C & CE). He states that there is no justification to his not being allocated to the said services despite the availability of vacancies. In the notification for CSE, 2011, a total of 100 vacancies in the IRS (IT) and 88 in the IRS (C & CE) had been notified. There were 12 backlog vacancies in IRS (IT) and 10 in IRS (C & CE). In fact, from 1996 onwards till 2010, there had been a failure to provide for reservations t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ebruary, 2018, both the IRS (C & CE) as well as the IRS (IT), apart from recognising the B/LV category, also provide reservation for the 'Multiple Disabilities' category. 26. As regards vacancies, the Respondents have been unable to dispute the fact of existing vacancies, including a huge backlog of vacancies in the PH category that remain to be filled. 27. The Court is unable to find in the pleadings any justification by the Respondents for the failure to provide for reservations to the PH category from 1996 onwards. This position was squarely dealt with in the Ravi Prakash Gupta (supra) by the Supreme Court. In that case, the Supreme Court observed as under: "15. Although, the Delhi High Court has dealt with the aforesaid questions, we wish to add a few observations of our own in regard to the objects which the legislature intended to achieve by enacting the aforesaid Act. The submission made on behalf of the Union of India regarding the implementation of the provisions of Section 33 of the Disabilities Act, 1995, only after identification of posts suitable for such appointment, under Section 32 thereof, runs counter to the legislative intent with which the Act was enacted. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....served for him/her will be made against a vacancy in an identified post for instance, the post of peon, which is identified for him in group D. Similarly, one hearing impaired will be appointed against one reserved vacancy for that category in the post of store attendant in group D post. Likewise, one person suffering from locomotor disability or cerebral palsy will be appointed against the post of "Farash" group D post identified for that category of disability. It was argued on behalf of Union of India with reference to the post of driver that since the said post is not suitable to be manned by a person suffering from blindness, the above interpretation of the Section would be against the administrative exigencies. Such an argument is wholly misconceived. A given post may not be identified as suitable for one category of disability, the same could be identified as suitable for another category or categories of disability entitled to the benefit of reservation. In fact, the second part of the Section has clarified this situation by providing that the number of vacancies equivalent to 1% for each of the aforementioned three categories will be filled up by the respective category by....