HOME	[ Search site: ] jump to navigational links

Policy and Law > Judgements > Education

Ravi Kumar Arora Vs. Union of India and Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)

In the High Court of Delhi
Civil Writ Petition no: 6706 of 2002
Decided On: 15.04.2004
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Advocates for Petitioner: Shri Sanjay Khanna and Ms. Neeru Vaid

Context

The petitioner, Ravi Kumar Arora, who has low vision, cleared Civil Services Examination 2001, under the general category, with a rank of 325 and received intimation for joining the foundation course. Meanwhile, the petitioner was asked to undergo medical examination conducted by the Medical Board and was declared unfit for all Services on account of “substandard vision”. He represented against the same and requested UPSC to treat him as a disabled candidate and appoint him against the suitable vacancy/post identified under the provisions of The Disability Act. The petitioner also attached medical certificate from the office of the medical superintendent, Safdarjung Hospital certifying his 40 per cent disability along with the request letter.

The respondent (UPSC) rejected the petitioner’s request to be accommodated in the disabled category for the examination of 2001, on the grounds that he had not mentioned his disability in that year’s application and UPSC does not allow any changes in the application form.

The petitioner made another request to the respondent (UPSC) to allow him to write the main examination 2002, under the disabled category.

The request to write main exams 2002 under disabled category was also rejected on the ground that the concession admissible to blind candidates was not admissible to persons with myopia!

Judgement

It can by no stretch of imagination be said on the one hand the petitioner is not entitled to any reservation and on the other hand he is not eligible to be appointed even as a General candidate. It is no answer to be given by the respondent that the petitioner did not apply under the category of visually impaired person. There was no specific column for the said purpose. There was no post identified or reservation made for such visually impaired persons.

The petitioner without any aid appeared in the written examination and was successful. The petitioner was found meritorious by the expert panel in interview. To deny the benefit of appointment to the post would be a travesty of justice. The unfortunate part is thst the Committee appointed in terms of order dated 02.07.1999 to identify the posts had identified various posts for even visually impaired persons of Group ‘A” and Group ‘B’, but even that was not given effect to and the new Committee has been set in the year 2003 only to somehow evade the effect of the said Act.

It has been stated at the Bar by learned counsel for the parties that as per the rank of he petitioner, the petitioner would have been entitled to the Indian Postal Services or possibly a superior Service. There is no reason why the petitioner should not be appointed to the post as per merit since the respondent has failed to carry out the mandate of the reservation for visually impaired persons of 1 per cent and there is no candidate over the seniority of the petitioner in the said category. The process of once again identifying the posts by respondents after failing to identify these for eight years makes no sense: the petitioner has already suffered enough.

The petitioner is therefore entitled to be appointed as per his merit and seniority based on the rank obtained by the petitioner for the Examination of 2001 and the petitioner be so appointed to the Indian Postal Services or an equivalent Service. The petitioner is also liable to be treated as having joined in service along with his batch-mates. In so far as the back wages and other monetary benefits for the past are concerned, the petitioner will be entitled to all the monetary benefits for the past minus the amount received by the petitioner in the course of his employment.

The court also directed to appoint the petitioner to the post in pursuance to the Examination of Civil Service 2001 with all the consequential benefits within a maximum period of one month from the date of this order. It also asked respondent to pay petitioner Rs 20,000 as cost of the proceedings.

Printer-friendly version | E-mail this page to a friend

Main links in the Policy and Law section: Directory | Going to Court | Judgements | Policy Breakthroughs | News | Success Stories

Other links in the Policy and Law section: F.A.Q.s | Links