Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ms. Shweta Bansal vs Union Of India Through on 1 May, 2014
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench: New Delhi OA No.3062/2013 Reserved on: 25.02.2014 Pronounced on:01.05.2014 Honble Mr. Justice Syed Rafat Alam, Chairman Honble Dr. B. K. Sinha, Member (A) Ms. Shweta Bansal D/o Mr. Vinay Bansal, R/o N-1, 1st Floor, Kailash Colony, New Delhi-110 048. Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Rajshekhar Rao) Versus Union of India through 1. Secretary, Ministry of Personnel and Public Grievances Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi-110 001. 2. Union Public Service Commission Represented by Chairman, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110 011. Respondents (By Advocate: Shri R.N. Singh & Sh. Rajinder Nischal) O R D E R By Dr. B. K. Sinha, Member (A):
The instant OA, despite the seeming bulk of its pleadings, involves a simpler matter. The applicant has by means of this OA assailed the impugned order (Annexure A-1) allocating services to the selected candidates wherein the applicant has not been allocated any service despite having achieved a rank of 769 in the CSE 2012.
2. The applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):-
Direct the respondents to allot the applicant Indian Administrative Service or Indian Foreign Service. Alternatively, allow the applicant choose a service of her preference from the complete list of service in CSE 2012 in lieu of the services which had been opted by the applicant in the detailed application form but no vacancy is available for the applicant therein.
Pass any other order or direction that this Honble Tribunal may deem it fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice and equity.
3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant suffers with locomotor disability on the left lower side of the limb with slight muscular weakness in the right ankle and heel. The afore disability has been categorized as per the medical certificate dated 25.08.2011 as OL i.e. one leg affected only on account of having suffered a childhood accident leading to spinal injury. The applicant is a law graduate serving in a Law Firm namely Amarchand & Mangaldas & Suresh A Shroff & Co. for seven years. The applicant had appeared in the Central Services Examination, 2012 (for short CSE-2012); was interviewed and recommended for appointment by the UPSC against 34 vacancies reserved for PH candidates having achieved 769th rank in the general category. The applicant, while filling up the application form, admittedly opted for the following eight services:-
1. Indian Administrative Service
2. Indian Foreign Service
3. Indian Revenue Service (I.T.) Group A
4. Indian Revenue Service (Customs and Excise) Group A
5. Indian Audit and Accounts Service Group A
6. Indian P&T Accounts Services Group A
7. Post of Assistant Security Commissioner in Railway Protection Force
8. Indian Corporate Law Services Group A.
The Press Note issued while recommending the services specified as under:-
following is the list, in order of merit, of candidates who have been recommended for appointment to:-
Indian Administrative Service Indian Foreign Service Indian Police Service; and Central Services, Group A and Group B A total number of 998 candidates have been recommended for appointment including 457 General (including 23 physically challenged candidates), 295 other backward classes (including 09 physically challenged candidates), 169 Scheduled Castes (including 02 physically challenged candidates) and 77 Scheduled Tribes candidatges against 1091 vacancies (550 General, 295 Other Backward Classes, 169 Scheduled Castes and 77 Scheduled Tribes).
The number of vacancies reported by the Government for the Indian Administrative Service is 180 (94 General, 45 Other Backward Classes, 28 Scheduled Castes and 13 Scheduled Tribes); for the Indian Foreign Service is 30 (16 General, 09 Other Backward Classes, 05 Scheduled Castes and NIL Scheduled Tribes); for the Indian Police Service is 150 (75 General, 41 Other Backward Classes, 23 Scheduled Castes and 11 Scheduled Tribes); for the Central Services Group A is 630 (323 General, 172 Other Backward Classes, 89 Scheduled Castes and 24 Scheduled Tribes); and for Central Services Group B is 101 (42 General, 28 Other Backward Classes, 24 Scheduled Castes and 07 Scheduled Tribes). This includes 34 vacancies for physically challenged candidates in Central Services Group A & B.
4. However, when the final allocation of services was made, the name of the applicant was missing. The applicant has challenged the act of non-allocation of any service to her principally on the following grounds:-
(i) The advertisement for CSE 2012 issued in the official gazette dated 04.02.2012 contained in Annexure IV a list of services identified suitable for physically disabled out of which the services opted by the applicant are extracted hereunder:-
Name of services/post Order of preference Indian Administrative Service 1 Indian Foreign Service 2 Indian Revenue Service (I.T.) Group A 3 Indian Defence Accounts Service Group A 4 Indian Revenue Service (Customs and Excise) Group A 5 Indian P&T Accounts Services Group A 6 Post of Assistant Security Commissioner in Railway Protection Force 7 Indian Corporate Law Services Group A. 8 According to the classification, the advertisement indicates that there were vacancies for the OL category of the physically disabled. However, during the course of final allocation that has taken, there is no post reserved for this category as for instance in the Indian Foreign Service. This, the applicant contends, is illegal, arbitrary, null and void ab initio.
Candidates having a lower place of merit have been allocated services like IAS and/or IFS while the applicant having a higher place in the order of merit has not been allocated any service at all. This is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The action of the respondents is contrary to the decision of the Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal in the case of N. Manjushree (Ms) versus Union of India and Others [OA No. 353/2010 decided on 03.06.2011] wherein it has been held that a person who may be affected from both legs is eligible for IAS. The afore decision has since attained finality. The applicant has also filed a rejoinder wherein it has been submitted that out of 34 vacancies appointments have made only against 29 vacancies and the remaining vacancies are still available for allocation. The applicant has also given a list to this effect at pages 330 to 332 of the paper book. The applicant has further submitted during the course of arguments that had the factual position been indicated in the advertisement, she would have filled up the form where the vacancies were available for her category of physically disabled.
5. The respondent no.1 has filed a counter affidavit resisting the OA contending that a duty of due care and caution is upon the applicant while filling up the form under the terms of Rule 2 of the CSE 2012. The respondent has particularly referred to Note-I of Rule 2 wherein a duty has been cast upon the candidates of being more careful while filling up the form qua preferring services.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent argues that in not having exercised due care and caution while filling up the form, the applicant is estopped at this stage from taking up the plea that non-allocation of service to her is the consequence of faulty advertisement and practices on part of the respondents. In the second place, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the vacancy position in respect of each of the services for which examination is being held is reported directly by the concerned cadre controlling authority to the respondent no.2 to be filled up through the CSE. The respondent no.1 has also given a vacancy position at Annexure A-1 annexed with counter affidavit (page 292 of the paper book). The respondent no.2 after declaration of the result of the CSE forwards to the respondent no.1 a list of the successful candidates and also the category of each candidate equal to the total number of vacancies to be filled up in the relevant examination for allocation to the services reported by the cadre controlling authority to UPSC. While undertaking this exercise, the respondent no.2 takes into account preferences expressed by various services, their medical status (PH sub-category i.e. Locomotor Disability & Cerebral Palsy, Visual Impairment and Hearing Impairment in case of PH Category candidates) and vacancies in the categories i.e. SC, ST, OBC, General category and PH category. The respondent no.2 declares the category of each candidate as to whether one belongs to SC, ST, OBC, General or PH. The role of the respondent no.1 is confined to allocation of service to the candidates declared successful and whose dossiers have been provided by the respondent no.2 to the respondent no.1. The allocation of services in respect of the candidates recommended by the UPSC is done on the basis of ranks, categories, preferences and medical status of the candidates as per the category-wise vacancies. Once the services have been allocated the dossiers of the candidates are sent to their respective cadre controlling authorities for completing the remaining formalities including issuing of formal appointment letter to the candidates. It is the case of the Respondent no.1 that it is only responsible for allocation of services to the IAS. The respondent no.1 further submits that as per the CSE Rules, allocation of service to the limited preference PH category candidate is made in the last i.e. after making allocation of all PH categories candidates. As per the preferences indicated by the applicant, she could not qualify for any one of the services preferred IAS-1, IFS-2, IRS(IT)-3, IRS(C&CE)-4, IA&AS-5, IP&TAFS-6, RPF-7 and ICLS-8 and, thus, remained unallocated. The respondent no.1 further submits that all others who have been allocated services within the PH category are having rank higher than the applicant and no other candidate having a rank lower than the applicant has been allocated any of the services to which she had opted despite having lower in rank. A candidate would only have a claim to the category of PH being suffered by him or her and none others. Counter affidavit of respondent no.1 further gives a list of candidates allocated services in respect of which the applicant had made options and to which she was otherwise entitled. The respondent no.1 further submits that candidate of LDCP category has no claim against the vacancy of other categories. There is 1% reservation in all categories of PH vide PWD Act, 2005. Thus, even being lower in the merit in general list, candidates are precluded from encroaching upon the claim of candidates of sub category of PH even if they are placed lower in the form of merit. The counter affidavit of the respondent no.1 further provides that there are two unallocated vacancies in the LDCP category one in IRTS and other in AFHQ. The applicant does not meet the PR/FC and also CCA for IRTS i.e. Ministry of Railways have not accepted to relax PR/FC during CSE 2011. The Ministry of Defence has been requested to indicate its view for relaxation of the PR/FC and further action is to be taken on receipt of the reply. However, the respondent will be most happy to accommodate the applicant in case the Ministry of Defence is prepared to accommodate her vide means of relaxed PR/FC standard.
7. The respondent no.2 has also filed its counter affidavit stating that there were a total number of 1091 vacancies in the CSE-2012 against which 998 candidates have already been recommended. For the remaining 92 vacancies, a reserve list of 184 vacancies have been maintained by the respondent as per Rule 16 (4) of the CSE-2012. The candidates from the reserve list will be recommended on receipt of a requisition from the Department of Personnel & Training. Out of the 1091 vacancies, 34 vacancies were reserved for PH candidates i.e. 20 for PH-1, 4 for PH-2 and 10 for PH-3. For 34 PH vacancies, 34 candidates have already been recommended against the respective vacancies in each category, a list of which has been provided at Annexure R-1. The counter affidavit further refers to that under Rule 17 of the CSE-2012 which provides that where a PH candidate obtains minimum qualifying marks in his own merit in the requisite number for general, SC, ST or OBC category then the extra PH candidates, i.e. more than the number of vacancies reserved for them shall be recommended by the Commission on the relaxed standards and consequential amendments in the rules will be notified in due course. It is also brought to our notice that this Bench of this Tribunal in the matter of Pankaj Kumar Srivastava versus Union of India [OA No. 3943/2011 decided on 30.05.2012] had directed the respondent no.2 to undertake an exercise to decide that in the CSE 2008 as to how many candidates deserved to be selected on their own merits. The afore decision of this Tribunal was challenged by the Union of India before the Honble High Court of Delhi by way of WP(C) No.4902/2012, which came to be decided on 11.10.2013 directing the petitioner/UOI to issue amendment in Rule 17. The respondent no.2 concludes the counter affidavit by stating that in view of the fact that no amendments have yet been made in rule 17 of the CSE Rules, 2010 and CSE Rules for other subsequent examination.
8. The arguments of the parties by and large have followed their pleadings and were confined to afore stated facts alone. We have carefully examined the pleadings and such documents as have been additionally submitted. We have also carefully listened to the oral submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties. On the basis of the above, we find that the following issues are germane to arrive at a decision in this case:-
Whether any of the candidates in PH categories securing lesser marks than the applicant have been allocated services in preference over the applicant?
Whether the rights of the applicant are affected in any way by the fact of non-disclosure and tentative disclosure made by the respondents in the CSE, 2012 advertisement vide Gazette Notification dated 04.02.2012 qua the vacancies pertaining to the PH category in respect of disability suffered by the applicant?
What relief, if any, can be granted to the applicant?
9. In so far as the first of the issues is concerned, the reservation for physically challenged persons is made under the provisions of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Partition) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to Disability Act of 1995). This enactment has flown out of Beijing Declaration 1992 to which India was also a signatory. This declaration made it mandatory for all signatory Nations to enact suitable legislation "(i) to spell out the responsibility of the State towards the prevention of disabilities, protection of rights, provision of medical care, education, training, employment and rehabilitation of persons with disabilities; (ii) to create barrier free environment for persons with disabilities; (iii) to remove any discrimination against persons with disabilities in the sharing of development benefits, vis-a-vis, non-disabled persons; (iv) to counteract any situation of the abuse and the exploitation of persons with disabilities; (v) to lay down strategies for comprehensive development of programmes and services and equalisation of opportunities for persons with disabilities; and (vi) to make special provision for the integration of persons with disabilities into the social mainstream." Accordingly, the Disability Act was enacted in the year 1995. This Act envisages various kinds of disabilities namely, blindness; low vision; leprosy cured; hearing impairment; loco motor disability; mental retardation; and mental illness. Locomotor disability means disability of the bones, joints or muscles leading to substantial restriction of the movement of the limbs or any form of cerebral palsy. A person with disability means a person suffering from not less than forty per cent of any disability as certified by a medical authority [Section 2(t) of the Act]. Section 32 of the Disability Act enjoins a responsibility to identify post in the establishment which could be reserved for the persons with disabilities and to review keeping in mind the development in technology periodically not exceeding three years. Section 33 of the Act ibid makes provision for reservation in services with three classes. For the sake of clarity, the provisions of Section 33 of the Act are extracted as below:-
33. Reservation of Posts - Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less than three per cent. for persons or class of persons with disability of which one per cent. each shall be reserved for persons suffering from-
i) blindness or low vision;
ii) hearing impairment;
iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy, in the posts identified for each disability:
Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any department or establishment, by notification subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section. Admittedly, the applicant had opted for only eight of the services. The entries in Annexure IV of the advertisement provides a list of services identified for the physically disabled category persons along with physical requirement and functional classification, which inter alia, includes the Indian Foreign Service.
Sl.
No. Name of the Service Category(ies) for which identified Functional classification Physical requirements
2. Indian Foreign Service (i) Locomotor disability
(ii)Visual impairment
(iii)Hearing Impairment OA, OL, OAL LV HH S, ST, W, RW, C, MF, SE
10. The argument of the applicant is that she had filled up the form on the basis of information gleaned from the Notification dated 04.02.2012 in respect of CSE 2012. The above information implied, as it would be construed by a prudent person, that there were vacancies existing for the OL category to which the applicant belongs in the Indian Foreign Service. However, we take a note of the arguments of the respondents here that the vacancies, except in the Indian Administrative Service, are reported directly to the UPSC by the respective cadre controlling authorities. The following vacancies were intimated in respect of the eight services opted by the applicant:-
Sl.
No Services/Posts No. of vacancies PH vacancies PWD Certificate SC ST OBC GEN Total LCDP* B/LV# #HI Total PH Remarks 1 IAS 28 13 45 94 180 2 2 2 6 Yes 2 IFS 5 0 9 16 30 0 0 1 1 Yes 8 IRS (IT) 27 13 48 90 178 2 0 3 5 Yes 6 IRS (C&E) 22 11 40 76 149 2 0 2 4 No 5 IAAS 4 2 6 13 25 0 0 0 0 Yes 4 IP&TA&FS 1 1 2 5 9 1 0 0 1 Yes 15 ASO in RPF 4 2 10 17 33 - - - - Exempt 19 ICLS 0 0 3 3 6 0 0 1 1 Yes This obviously indicates that there was no vacancy in respect of the Indian Foreign Service. We further take note of the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that these vacancies are intimated tentatively and are firmed up at the time of service allocation. We further take note of the attention drawn by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 to Rule 2 of the CSE-2012 which casts the duty of due care and caution upon the candidates filling up the form. In particular this Rule advises the candidates to be more than careful while indicating preferences of various services/posts. For the sake of clarity, the concerned Rule along with Note-I is extracted hereunder:-
Rule 2:- A candidate shall be required to indicate in his/her application form for the Main Examination his/her order of preferences for various services/posts for which he/she would like to be considered for appointment in case he/she is recommended for appointment by Union Public Service Commission.
A candidate who wishes to be considered for IAS/IPS shall be required to indicate in his/her application form for the Main Examination his/her order of preferences for various State cadres for which he/she would like to be considered for allotment in case he/she is appointed to the IAS/IPS.
Note-I The candidate is advised to be very careful while indicating preferences for various services/posts. In this connection, attention is also invited to rule 19 of the Rules. The candidate is also advised to indicate all the services/posts in the order of preference in his/her application form. In case he/she does not give any preference for any services/posts, it will be assumed that he/she has no specific preference for those services. If he/she is not allotted to any one of the services/posts for which he/she has indicated preference, he/she shall be allotted to any of the remaining services/posts in which there are vacancies after allocation of all the candidates who can be allocated to services/posts in accordance with their preferences. In its counter affidavit, the respondent no.1 has submitted that as per the CSE Rules, allocation of services to the limited preference PH category candidate is made at the end i.e. after making allocation of all PH category candidates. The simple argument of the respondents is that the applicant was not diligent enough while filling up the preferences in the dorm despite the note of caution referred to above. All the services preferred by the applicant, the IFS, IA&AS and ICLS had no vacancies in the LDCP sub category of PH category for CSE-2012. Therefore, she was considered for four services that being IAS, IRS (IT), IRS( C&CE) and IP&TAFS but in none of these categories, the applicant qualifies on account of having a lower rank and services being allocated to officers ranking higher than the applicant.
11. However, we are constrained to observe that despite the note of caution in the Notification dated 04.02.2012 for CSE 2012 how a prudent man will act, the nature of advertisement is such that a prudent candidate filling up the form would be lulled into belief that there exists a vacancy for the OL category in the IFS. We do not find it mentioned anywhere that this advertisement is only indicative and the actual figures would be firmed up subsequently when the allocation of service is actually being made. In the case that the applicant harbours such a notion, we are of the considered opinion that she has not to be faulted. However, at the same time, it is a flaw in the system which, we are of the opinion, needs to be corrected. In this regard, the applicant has relied upon the following decisions of the Honble Supreme Court of India:-
Union of India versus Tulsi Ram Patel [1985 (3) SCC 398] Javed Abidi versus Union of India [1999 (1) SCC 467] Union of India and Another versus National Federation of Blind and Others [2013 (10) SCC 722].
12. In the case of Union of India versus Tulsi Ram Patel (supra), the Honble Supreme Court has held that Article 14 of the Constitution strictly prohibits treating equals as unequal and unequal as equals. It was realized that when a person is treated differently from another without there being any rational basis, the same would be arbitrary and discriminatory. Arbitrariness can take many forms and shapes but whatever form or shape it takes, it is nonetheless discrimination. It also becomes apparent that to treat one person or a class of persons unfairly would be an arbitrary act amounting to discrimination forbidden by Article 14 of the Constitution. Similarly, the court recognizes that to treat one person in violation of principles of natural justice would amount to arbitrary and discriminatory treatment and would violate the guarantee given by the Article 14 of the Constitution. This position cannot be denied and remained undisputed.
13. In the case of Javed Abidi versus Union of India (supra), the Honble Supreme Court has held as under:-
The Act in question was passed by the Parliament which intends to provide for the following as apparent from the statements of Objects and Reasons:
"(i) to spell out the responsibility of the State towards the prevention of disabilities, protection of rights, provision of medical care, education, training, employment and rehabilitation of persons with disabilities;
(ii) to create barrier free environment for persons with disabilities;
(iii) to remove any discrimination against persons with disabilities in the sharing of development benefits, vis-a-vis, non-disabled persons;
(iv) to counteract any situation of the abuse and the exploitation of persons with disabilities;
(v) to lay down a strategies for comprehensive development of programmes and services and equalisation of opportunities for persons with disabilities; and
(vi) to make special provision for the integration of persons with disabilities into the social mainstream."
The Committees constituted by the Central Government as well as by the respective State Governments must, therefore, make earnest endeavour to achieve the objectives as indicated above, in exercise of their powers conferred under the Act. This position too is uncontroverted.
14. In the case of Union of India and Another versus National Federation of Blind and Others (supra), the Honble Supreme Court has observed that employment is a key factor in the empowerment and inclusion of people with disabilities. It is an alarming reality that the disabled people are out of job not because their disability comes in the way of their functioning rather it is social and practical barriers that prevent them from joining the workforce. As a result, many disabled people live in poverty and in deplorable conditions. They are denied the right to make a useful contribution to their own lives and to the lives of their families and community. The directives, which the Honble Supreme Court has given, are as follows:-
55. In our opinion, in order to ensure proper implementation of the reservation policy for the disabled and to protect their rights, it is necessary to issue the following directions:-
55.1 We hereby direct the appellant herein to issue an appropriate order modifying the OM dated 29-12-2005 and the subsequent OMs consistent with this Courts order within three months from the date of passing of this judgment.
55.2 We hereby direct the appropriate Government to compute the number of vacancies available in all the establishments and further identify the posts for disabled persons within a period of three months from today and implement the same without default.
55.3 The appellant herein shall issue instructions to all the departments/public sector undertakings/government companies declaring that the non-observance of the scheme of reservation for persons with disabilities should be considered as an act of non-obedience and the Nodal Officer in department/public sector undertakings/ government companies, responsible for the proper strict implementation of reservation for person with disabilities, be departmentally proceeded against for the default.
15. The point that clearly emerges from the above judgment of the Honble Supreme Court is that the State needs to demolish the barriers and provide jobs to the physically disabled as per their entitlement for which specific directions have been given in respect of computing the vacancies viewing the non-observance with severity. We conclude this issue by holding that this is a lapse on part of the respondent organization to have issued an advertisement in such a manner that the applicant was lulled into believing that vacancies existed for the OL category in IFS whereas there was none. However, in the same breath we also take note of the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents that this is the way in which the examination has been organized. There would be no discrimination as it is equally applicable. Reconciling both the positions, we feel that this issue is weighted in favour of the applicant.
16. In so far as second of the issues is concerned, as we have already taken note of the arguments of both the parties, the same need not be repeated. Suffices it so say that out of the eight services only four of the services had vacancies for the OL category to which the applicant belongs. In that respect the persons of higher merit allocated services and there is no discrimination to be unfair from the charts provided by the respondents. We take them one by one. In respect of the LDCP category the position is as follows:-
Name S/Sh.& Category Rank Functional Classification Service allotted Manish Kumar (Gen) 40 OL IAS Anand Sharma (Gen) 364 OA IAS Saddik Ahmed (OBC) 439 OL IRS (IT) Rajeev Wadhera (Gen) 486 BL IRS (IT) Jadhav Priya Ratnakar (SC) 516 OL IRS (C&CE) Siddharth Jain (Gen) 555 OL IRS (C&CE) Balasubramanian (SC) 729 OL IP&TAFS The respondents have also submitted that it is true that some physically disabled candidates having rank lower than that of the applicant (LCDP) have also been allocated services in respect of which the applicant had given preferences. However, these persons belong to different categories of the PH and, as such, there is clash with the applicants claim:-
Name S/Sh.& Category Rank Functional Classification Service allotted Pawar Narsing Sambhaji (Gen) 846 PD IAS Shubham Singh (Gen) 930 PD IFS Ashutosh Kumar Singh (Gen) 997 PD IRS (C&CE) Chanchal Kumar Tiwari (Gen) 998 PD IRS (C&CE) Bhapkar Snehal Purushottam (Gen) 999 PD IRAS Here, we fully agree with the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents that the applicant belonging to one category of PH does not have her path processing with other category as she cannot possibly stake a claim to their posts despite the fact that they may rank lower than her. That is a part of the reservation system and cannot be avoided. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the respondents.
17. Now we come to the last of the issues. Since the issue no.1 has been decided in favour of the applicant, we are of the considered opinion that despite the fact that the applicant has not been vigilant enough in making her options in the three categories in respect of IA&AS, ICLS and RPF, there appears to be some reprieve for her in respect to IFS. Any person in her position reading the advertisement in question would have lulled into the belief that vacancies existed in the IFS but the same cannot be said against other three services. At the same time, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is keen to serve the Nation but only in the eight categories opted by her and not in others. This may be the perspective particular to the applicant. We are of the belief that services could be rendered to the Nation in any capacity, in any of the services. Some of the people who have contributed immensely to the Nation or to the community were neither holding any rank nor were Members of any Service. Newspapers are full of the stories of one mountain man Dashrath Manjhi from a Dalit family, who, by his sole efforts spread for 37 years, cut a road across the hills. The nation is not bereft of many such more examples.
18. Taking cognizance of the fact that the system is faulty and we are hopeful that the department would take steps in future to rectify the same and bring it more in alignment with the reality. However, in so far as the applicant is concerned, her plea was to allow her into IAS or IFS or alternatively to choose a service for her preference from the complete list of services in CSE-2012 in lieu of the services which have been opted by her in the detailed application form where no vacancy was available for the applicant.
19. We have also taken a note of the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents that the department is already making efforts with the Ministry of Defence, where vacancy existed, qua relaxation of the specifications in respect of AFHQ so that the applicant could be inducted therein. We, therefore, dispose of this Original Application with the following directives:-
The applicant may be allowed to choose from any of the services in which unfilled vacancies exist in respect of CSE-2012 for the OL category in lieu of IFS where the applicant has suffered on account of ambivalence of the applicant and not in respect of the other three services where the applicant has not been careful enough in filling up the form. This order should be implemented within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. B. K. Sinha) (Syed Rafat Alam)
Member (A) Chairman
/naresh/