Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
N. Shravan Kumar vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 24 February, 2014
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.3866/2012 With O.A.No.3992/2012 Monday, this the 24th day of February 2014 Honble Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, Member (J) Honble Mr. Uday Kumar Varma, Member (A) O.A. No.3866/2012 Purnima Jain Aged 31 years d/o Dr. Prakash Chandra Jain r/o 284-CH, Scheme No.74-C Vijay Nagar, Indore (MP) O.A. No.3992/2012 N. Shravan Kumar Aged 34 years s/o Mr. N R K Sharma room No.216 Institute of Government Accounts & Finance Old JNU Campus, New Delhi-67 ..Applicants (Mr. S. Rungta, Senior Advocate (Mr. Prashant Singh, Advocate along with him) Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions North Block, New Delhi 2. Union Public Service Commission Through Chairman Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi - 3 ..Respondents (Mr. R.N. Singh, Advocate for Union of India Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for UPSC) O R D E R (ORAL)
Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj:
The aforementioned two Original Applications raise identical question of law and facts, thus are taken up for disposal in terms of a common order.
2. Briefly stating, the facts of these cases are that the applicants appeared in Civil Service Examination 2008 and obtained 1123 and 1144 marks respectively. According to them, there were two other visually handicapped candidates, who stood sufficiently high in merits and were entitled to be adjusted against general vacancies but since the respondents appointed the said two candidates against the vacancies reserved for physically challenged (visually handicapped candidates), the applicants could not be allocated IAS/IFS and could be allocated IRPS and ICAS.
3. In sum and substance, the contention of Mr. S. Rungta, learned senior counsel for applicants is that the visually handicapped candidates selected on their own general merit should not be adjusted against the reserved vacancies, provided they have not availed the relaxation in age and number of attempts and should be given general vacancies and the next below candidates from the said category should be given the benefit of reservation meant for visually handicapped candidates. In support of his contention, he relied upon the order dated 8.10.2010 passed by this Tribunal in N. Shravan Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission & another (O.A. No.1893/2009 with connected cases). According to him, the order dated 30.5.2012 passed by this Tribunal in Pankaj Kumar Srivastava v. Union Public Service Commission & another (O.A. No.3493/2011 with connected cases) could be upheld by the Honble High Court of Delhi vide its judgment dated 11.10.2013 in W.P. (C) No.4902/2013.
4. Mr. Naresh Kaushik, learned counsel for respondent No.2 Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) fairly submitted that the controversy raised in the present Original Applications could be addressed to by Honble High Court of Delhi (supra). Nevertheless, he submitted that the category-wise bifurcation of backlog vacancies for differently abled candidates is not an issue in the present cases, thus may not be commented upon by this Tribunal.
5. Mr. R.N. Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1 Union of India read out two orders referred to by Mr. S. Rungta, learned senior counsel for applicants and submitted that such differently abled candidates, who availed the benefit of age relaxation and number of attempts in the examination, cannot be given the benefit of the relaxed standard. He also submitted that since the applicants had earlier approached this Tribunal by way of O.A. No.1893/2009 (supra) and O.A. No.3792/2010 and the said Original Applications were adjudicated and disposed of in terms of orders dated 8.10.2010 and 24.1.2011 respectively, the present O.As are barred by res judicata. According to him, in implementation of the directions issued by this Tribunal in said Original Applications, the two applicants have been given appointment on the basis of Civil Service Examination 2008 and are allocated due Service as per their merit position. He further submitted that the present two Original Applications filed in the year 2012 are also barred by limitation.
6. In rejoinder, Mr. Rungta, learned senior counsel for applicants submitted that since the two applicants before us were not allocated the Service properly, i.e., by keeping in view the fact that the candidates who were selected on their own merits were to be given general vacancies and reserved vacancies available were to be given to the applicants, the fresh cause of action could accrue to them to claim the allocation of due Service. He also submitted that since the allocation in question was done on 9.1.2012 and the present Original Applications were filed on 19.11.2012 and 23.11.2012 respectively, they are not barred by limitation.
7. We heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the records.
8. As can be seen from the counter reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1, initially both the applicants were not declared successful in the Civil Service Examination 2008 and they approached the Tribunal by way of O.A. No.1893/2009 (supra) and O.A. No.3792/2010 (supra). The applicants placed reliance upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Govt. of India through Secretary & another v. Ravi Prakash Gupta & another (Special Leave Petition (C) No.14889/2009) decided on 7.7.2010 and pleaded that all the vacancies, which could be reserved for differently abled candidates since 1996, should have been taken into account and after recalculation of the vacancies, fresh exercise to assess their candidature for inclusion in the select list and allocation of proper Service should be done.
9. In sum and substance, the plea of the applicants before the Tribunal was that the backlog vacancies meant for visually handicapped candidates should have been taken into account to determine their position in the select list. O.A. No.1893/2009 (supra) was allowed by this Tribunal with direction to carry out the exercise to determine the backlog vacancies in different Services and the vacancies of the year 2008, and to consider allocation of the applicants before it to suitable Services as per their choices. For easy reference, the operative portion of the said order of the Tribunal, as reproduced by respondent No.1 in its reply in O.A. No.3866/2012, reads as under:-
11. The OAs numbers (mentioned in paragraph 3(i) and 3 (ii) are allowed. The First Respondent is directed to carry out an exercise to work out the backlog vacancies in different services and the vacancies of the year 2008 to consider allocation of the Applicants to suitable services as per their choices. Since this would entail consultation with cadre controlling authorities, we are giving six months time to complete this exercise. The allocation of services to the Applicants would be from the date of allocation of services to the candidates of CSE 2008. The allocation would be on notional basis and the Applicants would not be entitled to back wages. If no service is decided to be allocated to any one of the Applicants, detailed, cogent and logical reasons would be recorded in a speaking order, which the Applicants would be at liberty to challenge in a fresh proceeding before the appropriate forum. The Applicants in OAs numbers 2717 and 2369 of 2009 would be considered for allocation to IAS within eight weeks from the receipt of this order.
10. In compliance of the directions issued by the Tribunal, the UPSC, vide its order dated 30.8.2011, recommended to the Department of Personnel & Training the names of the candidates for being considered for Service allocation against the backlog of the vacancies intimated to it by different cadre controlling authorities. The details of backlog vacancies in visually impaired category, as communicated by the UPSC to DoPT, are reproduced as under:-
S.No. Name of Service No. of Backlog vacancies now available for Visually Impaired candidates 1 IAS 1(+1) 2 IFS 2 3 IPos 0 4 IP&T&FAS -
5 IA&AS 0 6 IRS(C&CE) -
7 IDAS 0 8 IOFS -
9 IRS(IT) -
10 ICAS 1
11. IRAS -
12. IRPS -
13. IDES -
14. SO in AFHQ 1
15. DANICS -
16. DANIPS -
17. IIS -
18. ICLS -
19. ITS -
20. PONS-CS -
TOTAL 5(1)
11. The names of candidates recommended by the UPSC against the backlog vacancies mentioned by respondent No.1 in its said reply read as under:-
CSE Year S.No. Name (Category) A2008 1. Abhishek Singh (LDCP) L1 A2008 2. Bhopal Singh Mehta (LDCP L2 A2008 3. Rao Kshitizraj Singh (OBC: LDCP) L3 A2008 4. K. Shubhendra (OBC: LDCP) L4 A2008 5. Manish Kumar (LDCP) L5 A2008 6. Prasantkumar S.B. (OBC : LDCP) L6 A2008 7. Sultan Singh (OBC: LDCP) L7 A2008 8. Hizam Khambaton Singh (SC:LDCP) L8 A2008 9. Mukul Verma (LDCP) L9 A2008 10. Rajesh Kumar (OBC: LDCP) L10 A2008 11. N. Sharvan Kumar (Visually Impaired) V1 A2008 12. Purnima Jain (Visually Impaired) V2 A2008 13. Avnish Bansal (Hearing Impaired) H1 A2009 1. Pawar Sandip Nanaso (LDCP) L1 A2009 2. Ratinder Kaur (LDCP) L2 A2009 3. Chanbasha M. (OBC: LDCP) L3 A2009 4. Neeraj Singh (LDCP) L4 A2009 5. Rajiv Wadhera (LDCP) L5 A2009 6. Mahesh Chanda Jewalia (OBC: LDCP) L6 A2009 7. Sultan Singh (OBC: LDCP) L7 A2009 8. Ajit Kumar (LDCP) L8 A2009 9. Subodh Kumar Singh (Visually Impaired) V1 Total LDCP - 10+8=18 VI - 02+1=03 HI - 01+0=01 Total =22
11. As per the exercise done by the respondents, the applicant in O.A. No.3866/2012 was allocated IRPS and the applicant in O.A. No.3992/2012 was allocated ICAS. As has been noticed hereinabove, being discontented with the allocation of the Services, the applicants filed the present Original Applications. As far as the pleas of limitation and constructive res judicata raised by Mr. R.N. Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1 is concerned, in view of the submissions made by learned senior counsel for applicants recorded in paragraph 6 above, we are not inclined to accept the same.
12. In view of the controversy raised in these Original Applications, it would be apt to refer to the concept of horizontal and vertical reservations. Social reservations in favour of SC, ST, OBC under Article 16 (4) of the Constitution are vertical reservation while the special reservations in favour of physically handicapped, women, etc. under Article 16 (1) or 15 (3) of the Constitution are horizontal reservations. Where a vertical reservation is made in favour of a backward class under Article 16 (4), the candidates belonging to such backward class may compete for non-reserved posts and if they are appointed to the non-reserved posts on their own merit, their numbers will not be counted against the quota reserved for the respective backward class. Similarly, if the number of SC candidates, who by their own merit, get selected to open competitive vacancies, equals or even exceeds the percentage of posts reserved for such categories, it cannot be said that the reservation quota for scheduled casts has been filled. The entire reservation quota will be intact and available in addition to those selected under open competition category. But the said principle applicable to vertical (social) reservations will not apply to horizontal (special) reservations. Where a special reservation for women is provided within the social reservation for scheduled casts, the proper procedure is first to fill up the quota for scheduled casts in order of merit and then find out the number of candidates among them who belong to the special reservation group of scheduled castes-women. If the number of women in such list is equal to or more than the number of special reservation quota, then there is no need for further selection towards the special reservation quota. Only if there is any shortfall, the requisite number of scheduled caste women shall have to be taken by deleting the corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of the list relating to scheduled castes. To this extent, horizontal (special) reservation differs from vertical (social) reservation. In other words, the women selected on merit within the vertical reservation quota will be counted against the horizontal reservation for women. Such is the view taken by the Honble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & others, AIR 2007 SC 3127. The position could be explained by their Lordships by giving example in paragraph 9 of the said judgment. As illustrated by the Apex Court, if 19 posts are reserved for scheduled castes (of which the quota for women is 4), 19 scheduled caste candidates shall have to be first listed in accordance with merit, from out of the successful eligible candidates. If such list of 19 candidates contains 4 scheduled caste women candidates, then there is no need to disturb the list by including any further scheduled caste candidate. On the other hand, if the list of 19 scheduled caste candidates contains only 2 woman candidates, then the next 2 scheduled caste woman candidates in accordance with merit, will have to be included in the list and corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of such list shall have to be deleted, so as to ensure that the final 19 selected candidates contain 4 women scheduled caste candidates. But if the list of 19 scheduled caste candidates contains more than 4 women candidates, selected on own merit, all of them will continue in the list and there is no question of deleting the excess women candidate on the ground that scheduled caste-women have been selected in excess of the prescribed internal quota of 4. In the case of Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra), the number of candidates to be selected under general category (open competition) were 59, out of which 11 were earmarked for women. When the first 59 from among the 261 successful candidates were taken and listed as per merit, it contained 11 women candidates, which was equal to the quota for general category women. Thus there was no need for any further selection of woman candidates under the special reservation for women. But what RPSC did that it included first 48 candidates in the order of merit (which contained 11 women) and thereafter filled the next 11 posts under the general category with woman candidates. As a result, among 59 general category candidates, in all 22 women had been selected consisting of 11 eleven women candidates selected on their own merit (candidates at Sl.Nos. 2,3,4,5,9,19,21,25,31,35 & 41 of the selection list) and another 11 (candidates at Sl. Nos.54,61,62,63, 66,74,75,77,78, 79 and 80 of the selection list) included under reservation quota for general category women. Honble Supreme Court in the said case considered such method to give special reservation as impermissible. For easy reference, paragraphs 9 to 13 of the said judgment are extracted hereinbelow:-
7. The second relates to the difference between the nature of vertical reservation and horizontal reservation. Social reservations in favour of SC, ST and OBC under Article 16(4) are 'vertical reservations'. Special reservations in favour of physically handicapped, women etc., under Articles 16(1) or 15(3) are 'horizontal reservations'. Where a vertical reservation is made in favour of a backward class under Article 16(4), the candidates belonging to such backward class, may compete for non-reserved posts and if they are appointed to the non-reserved posts on their own merit, their numbers will not be counted against the quota reserved for the respective backward class. Therefore, if the number of SC candidates, who by their own merit, get selected to open competition vacancies, equals or even exceeds the percentage of posts reserved for SC candidates, it cannot be said the reservation quota for SCs has been filled. The entire reservation quota will be intact and available in addition to those selected under Open Competition category. [Vide - Indira Sawhney (Supra), R. K. Sabharwal vs. State of Punjab (1995 (2) SCC 745), Union of India vs. Virpal Singh Chauvan (1995 (6) SCC 684 and Ritesh R. Sah vs. Dr. Y. L. Yamul (1996 (3) SCC 253)]. But the aforesaid principle applicable to vertical (social) reservations will not apply to horizontal (special) reservations. Where a special reservation for women is provided within the social reservation for Scheduled Castes, the proper procedure is first to fill up the quota for scheduled castes in order of merit and then find out the number of candidates among them who belong to the special reservation group of 'Scheduled Castes-Women'. If the number of women in such list is equal to or more than the number of special reservation quota, then there is no need for further selection towards the special reservation quota. Only if there is any shortfall, the requisite number of scheduled caste women shall have to be taken by deleting the corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of the list relating to Scheduled Castes. To this extent, horizontal (special) reservation differs from vertical (social) reservation. Thus women selected on merit within the vertical reservation quota will be counted against the horizontal reservation for women. Let us illustrate by an example :
If 19 posts are reserved for SCs (of which the quota for women is four), 19 SC candidates shall have to be first listed in accordance with merit, from out of the successful eligible candidates. If such list of 19 candidates contains four SC women candidates, then there is no need to disturb the list by including any further SC women candidate. On the other hand, if the list of 19 SC candidates contains only two woman candidates, then the next two SC woman candidates in accordance with merit, will have to be included in the list and corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of such list shall have to be deleted, so as to ensure that the final 19 selected SC candidates contain four women SC candidates. [But if the list of 19 SC candidates contains more than four women candidates, selected on own merit, all of them will continue in the list and there is no question of deleting the excess women candidate on the ground that 'SC-women' have been selected in excess of the prescribed internal quota of four.]
13. The aforementioned view taken by the Honble Supreme Court could also be followed by it in Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal v. Mamta Bisht & others, 2010 (6) SCALE 121. In the said case, the Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal issued an advertisement dated 7.6.2002 inviting applications for 35 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) with a stipulation that the number of vacancies might be increased or decreased. Respondent No.1 applied and sought benefit of reservation in favour of Uttaranchal women. The result of the selection was declared on 31.7.2003 and the said respondent was not selected. Instead of filling of 35 vacancies, there was recommendation to fill up 42 vacancies. Out of 42 posts, 26 were filled up by general category and 16 by reserved category candidates. Some women candidates stood selected in general category while others had been given the benefit of horizontal reservation being resident of Uttaranchal. Respondent No.1 being aggrieved preferred Writ Petition No.780/2003 (M/B) in the Honble High Court of Uttaranchal questioning the select list dated 31.7.2003 mainly on the ground that women candidates belonging to Uttaranchal had secured marks rendering them eligible to be selected in general category, thus when had they been treated as general category candidates, she could have been selected in reserved category being a woman of Uttaranchal. The High Court accepted the first submission of respondent No.1. The order was challenged before the Apex Court and following the view taken by it in Rajesh Kumar Darias case (supra), their Lordships reversed the order of the Honble High Court. Paragraphs 12 to 15 of the said judgment read thus:
12. The High Court decided the case on the sole ground that as the last selected candidate, receiving the benefit of horizontal reservation had secured marks more than the last selected general category candidate, she ought to have been appointed against the vacancy in general category in view of the judgment of this Court in Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477, and the Division Bench judgment of High Court of Uttaranchal in Writ Petition No.816/2002 (M/B) (Km. Sikha Agarwal Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors.) decided on 16.4.2003, and respondent no.1 ought to have 9 appointed giving benefit of reservation thus, allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No.1.
13. In fact, the High Court allowed the writ petition only on the ground that the horizontal reservation is also to be applied as vertical reservation in favour of reserved category candidates (social) as it held as under:
In view of above, Neetu Joshi (Sl.No.9, Roll No.12320) has wrongly been counted by the respondent No.3/Commission against five seats reserved for Uttaranchal Women General Category as she has competed on her own merit as general candidate and as 5th candidate the petitioner should have been counted for Uttaranchal Women General Category seats;
Admittedly, the said Neetu Joshi has not been impleaded as a respondent. It has been stated at the Bar that an application for impleadment had been filed but there is nothing on record to show that the said application had ever been allowed. Attempt had been made to implead some successful candidates before this Court but those applications stood rejected by this Court.
14. The view taken by the High Court on application of horizontal reservation is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors. AIR 2007 SC 3127, wherein dealing with a similar issue this Court held as under:
9. The second relates to the difference between the nature of vertical reservation and horizontal reservation. Social reservations in favour of SC, ST and OBC under Article 16(4) are vertical reservations Special reservations in favour of physically handicapped, women, etc., under Articles 16(1) or 15(3) are horizontal reservations. Where a vertical reservation is made in favour of a Backward Class under Article 16(4), the candidates belonging to such Backward Class, may compete for non- reserved posts and if they are appointed to the non- reserved posts on their own merit, their number will not be counted against the quota reserved for respective Backward Class. Therefore, if the number of SC candidates, who by their own merit, get selected to open competition vacancies, equals or even exceeds the percentage of posts reserved for SC candidates, it cannot be said that the reservation quota for SCs has been filled. The entire reservation quota will be intact and available in addition to those selected under open competition category. (Vide Indra Sawhney, R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan and Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr.Y.L. Yamul.) But the aforesaid principle applicable to vertical (social) reservations will not apply to horizontal (special) reservations. Where a special reservation for women is provided within the social reservation for Scheduled Castes, the proper procedure is first to fill up the quota for Scheduled Castes in order of merit and then find out the number of candidates among them who belong to the special reservation group of Scheduled Caste women;. If the number of women in such list is equal to or more than the number of special reservation quota, then there is no need for further selection towards the special reservation quota. Only if there is any shortfall, the requisite number of Scheduled Caste women shall have to be taken by deleting the corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of the list relating to Scheduled Castes. To this extent, horizontal (special) reservation differs from vertical (social) reservation. Thus women selected on merit within the vertical reservation quota will be counted against the horizontal reservation for women. (Emphasis added)
15. In view of the above, it is evident that the judgment and order of the High Court is not in consonance with law laid down by this Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra). The judgment and order impugned herein is liable to be set aside and all consequential orders become unenforceable and inconsequential. Thus, appeals succeed and are allowed. Judgment and order of the High Court dated 26.10.2005 passed in Writ Petition No.780/203 (M/B) is hereby set aside. No costs.
14. It is seen that in O.A. No.1893/2009 (supra), this Tribunal had categorically viewed that the candidates selected on their own merit would not count among reserved category and would be counted as unreserved category as per the DoPTs OM dated 29.12.2005. The paragraph 10 (c) of the said order reads as under:-
10. (c) the candidates selected on their own merit would not count among as per reserved category and would be counted as unreserved category as per the DOP&Ts OM of 29.12.2005.
15. Likewise, also in order dated 30.5.2012 passed in O.A. No.3493/2011 (supra), it could be viewed as under:-
15. It has been alleged by the applicant that he appeared in CSE 2008 and qualified in the written examination and was also called for personality test, but he has not been selected and his name has not been recommended by UPSC for appointment. That the Commission only recommended four persons to be selected, but it has not been mentioned that they have been selected against reservation quota or against their own merit. That five candidates ought to have been selected on their own merits belonging to visually impaired category, and the applicant ought to have been selected against a reserved vacancy. We have held above that providing a scribe and allowing an extra half an hour to attempt the examination to a visually impaired person is a facility in order to ensure the equality of opportunity to such persons, and it is not relaxed standard in the CSE 2008, only four candidates have been selected. Although it has not been mentioned that these candidates have been selected against reserved category or on their own merits, but the respondent No.1 in the counter reply has specifically stated that these four persons were selected against reserved category and no candidate was selected from the visually impaired category on his own merits, because they have availed the so called relaxed standards of scribe and extra time to attempt the examination. We have decided above that this is a facility and no relaxed standard. If a candidate belonging to visually impaired category avails the relaxed standard and he will not be selected against his own merit; rather he will be selected against reserved category, but if a candidate who is entitled according to his rank to be selected on his own merits without availing the relaxed standard of age and number of attempts, then he is to be adjusted on his own merits, and for this purpose, the respondents will have to undertake an exercise that in the CSE 2008 and other examinations how many candidates were selected on their own merits without availing the relaxed standard, and they will be adjusted in the unreserved category, and thereafter the earmarked vacancies are to be filled up by other visually impaired persons who are entitled to be selected and who could not be selected on their own merits. It has been argued by the learned senior advocate for the applicant that nine post were earmarked in the CSE 2008 for the visually impaired persons, and against the nine posts, only four candidates have been selected, without mentioning that they have been selected on their own merits or against reserved category. The learned counsel also argued that five persons must be selected on their own merits and they must be adjusted accordingly, in view of the office memorandum dated 29.12.2005, and rest of the vacancies should be filled up by other candidates belonging to reserved category. Under these circumstances, the OA deserved to be allowed.
16. The order has since been upheld by the Honble High Court in W.P. (C) No.4902/2013) in terms of order dated 11.10.2013. Relevant excerpt of the order of the Honble High Court is extracted hereinbelow:-
17. We are constrained to observe that the petitioner has been remiss in this regard and has itself caused a situation, whereby the entitlements which ought to have been available to the differently abled persons as early as on February 07, 1996 (the date of the commencement of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995) are being denied to them till today. The situation points out to a grim scenario which is the creation of the petitioner itself. It is pointed out at the cost of repetition that the realization of the rights in favour of the differently abled persons has to pass through similar obstacles which had to be removed by the Courts of law through the judgment in Ravi Prakash Guptas case (supra). Be that as it may, the benefit of omission on the part of the petitioner cannot be allowed to go in the favour of the petitioner for the purpose of assailing the impugned order of the Tribunal. Instead, the petitioner ought to have taken necessary steps to issue consequential amendments to fully operationalise the Rules by incorporating the principle of general merit for the purpose of making available the advantage to the differently abled persons resulting from their success in the exam on the basis of general merit. In the absence of an operational provision as contemplated by Rule 17, it is not feasible for the UPSC to make recommendations on the basis of the said principle, since the UPSC has to conduct the examination and make its recommendations on the basis of rules notified by the petitioner itself. However, the petitioner would be obliged to devise a mechanism to give effect to the law. We reiterate. The petitioner cannot raise any grievance which emanates as a result of inaction by the petitioner itself.
18. Under the circumstances, we do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, and we affirm the same. But, in the light of the fact that the consequential amendment in Rule 17 has not been issued by the petitioner we direct that the needful be done by the petitioner expeditiously and in any event not later than within four months from the date of this decision. We also direct the petitioner to apply its mind with regard to the fulfilment of the medical standards by the differently abled persons and issue appropriate guidelines in this regard, since Sh.S.K.Rungta, learned senior counsel appearing for the party impleaded had pointed out that the physical standards to be fulfilled by the differently abled persons have to be laid down separately and the medical standard for the general candidates cannot be made applicable to them.
19. Since the matter pertains to a very important issue concerning differently abled persons who have struggled to avail equal opportunities in the matter of employment, we are constrained to direct the Secretary DOPT to personally oversee the exercise with required seriousness and urgency to ensure that the persons of the differently abled category are not unduly deprived the benefits which have been made available to them under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
20. On the subject of whether the applicants before the Tribunal who were allowed a scribe and were provided 30 minutes extra time to write the paper were granted the benefit of a relaxed standard, we find that the CSE Rules provide as to what would constitute the relaxed standards and they are:- (i) Additional number of attempts allowed to certain reserved categories including persons suffering with disabilities in terms of Rule 4 of Civil Service Examination Rules; (ii) Relaxation in upper age limit in terms of Rule 6 of Civil Service Examination Rules; and (iii) Relaxation of minimum qualifying marks for persons with disabilities as prescribed in Rules 15 & 16 for persons with disabilities. Thus, the Rule itself envisages that allowing a scribe and providing extra time for writing the answers would not be amounting to availing a relaxed standard. This being so, the very foundation of the challenge has no peg to anchor itself on to.
17. Taking holistic view in the matter, we dispose of the present two Original Applications with direction to respondent No.1 Union of India to examine allocating the due Service to the applicants in view of the judgment of the Honble High Court (supra) and the judgments of the Apex Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra) and Mamta Bisht (supra), as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The outcome of such consideration would be communicated to the applicants by speaking order. No costs.
Let a copy of this order be placed in each case file.
( Uday Kumar Varma ) ( A.K. Bhardwaj ) Member (A) Member (J) February 24, 2014 /sunil/