W.P. (C) 1292/2014. Case: Ajit Kumar Vs UPSC. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | W.P. (C) 1292/2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Ravi Sikri, Sr. Advocate, Deepank Yadav and R. Majumdar, Advocates and For Respondents: Manish Mohan, CGSC, Manisha Rana Singh and Gaurav Sharma, Advocates |
| Judges | S. Ravindra Bhat and Vipin Sanghi, JJ. |
| Issue | Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - Sections 32, 33 |
| Judgement Date | October 13, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
Judgment:
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
-
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
-
The limited grievance agitated before the Court by the petitioner is as to his entitlement to be considered for selection and appointment to one of the Central Civil Services in terms of the Civil Services Examination 2006 (hereafter referred to as "CSE-2006"). The petitioner is an orthopaedically handicapped candidate suffering from disability, more particularly cerebral palsy, and is classifiable as "Locomotor Disability". In terms of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereafter referred to as "the Act"), especially Sections 32 and 33, 3% of all vacancies in all the Central Government services and posts under the Union and other covered establishments are to be earmarked to be filled by persons with disabilities. The Act, Rules and other instructions framed, mandate that such 3% has to be further subdivided into 1% each for three defined categories, i.e. Visually Impaired (VI), Hearing Impaired (HI) and those with Locomotor Disability (LD).
-
The petitioner had urged that his non-consideration and consequent rejection of candidature for the vacancies under the Act was arbitrary. He had approached the CAT earlier by filing O.A. No. 2717/2010, which was disposed of by following the previous order in N. Shravan Kumar etc. v. UPSC and Anr. (in O.A. No. 1893/2009, decided on 08.10.2010). The respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders. In the second round, the petitioner urged that consequent upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Govt. of India thr. Secretary and Anr. v. Ravi Prakash Gupta and Anr. in SLP(C) 14889/2009 [2010 (7) SCC 626], the UOI and all its agencies were required to consider the entire cadre and not merely earmarked posts for the purposes of reservation under the Act. It was thus urged that on the basis of such classification, for the period 1996-2006, a total number of 1147 vacancies had arisen to be filled up, of which 33 were to be earmarked under the Act. In terms of the provisions, 1/3rd of these, i.e. 11 posts were to be filled by persons with LD. Arguing that the records revealed that-of the 11 posts filled during that period, one was, in fact, treated as falling in the General Category, (on the basis of replies received in 2012 to the queries under the RTI Act, 2005), which has not been disputed before...
To continue reading
Request your trial