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, and the need for operational mechanisms to ensure their rights.

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. At a meeting convened in Beijing in December 19, 1992 by the Economic and Social Commission for Asian and Pacific Region to launch the Asian and Pacific Decade of Disabled Persons a proclamation was adopted on the Full Participation and Equality of People with Disabilities. Being a signatory to the said proclamation, discharging its obligation to enact a suitable legislation the Parliament of India accorded approval to the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Bill, 1995 and with the presidential assent being accorded on January 01, 1996, with effect from February 07, 1996 the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 came into force. The various provisions of the Act 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; and we are concerned with the subject of employment of the differently abled persons.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT), Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pension, assailing the order dated May 30, 2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench disposing of OA No.3943/2011 and three other connected Original Applications. The relief claimed in the said Original Application and the connected Original Applications primarily pertained to issuance of directions to appoint the applicants thereof to the Indian Administrative Service or any other Civil Service based on their rank in the merit list prepared against reserved vacancies, for the persons suffering from blindness or low vision in respect of CSE 2008, by taking into account both the vacancies filled by CSE 2008 as well as backlog vacancies in terms of OM No.36035/3/2004-Estt. (Res.) dated December 29, 2005 and OM No.36035/8/2003-Estt. (Res.) dated April 26, 2006, keeping in view the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.14889/2009 as well as directions issued in OA No.2402/2009 pertaining to implementation of Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 with all consequential benefits. The said Original Applications came to be decided by the order impugned, noting the main contentions of the applicants, as under:-

“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.”

3. The Tribunal has disregarded the contention of the writ petitioner that allowing the facility of scribe and extra time to attempt the exam was a relaxation and has held that in its view the said fact does not amount to availing a relaxed standard. The Original Application has been allowed directing as under:-

“The OA is allowed. The respondent No.1, UPSC, is directed to undertake the exercise in order to decide that in the CSE2008 and other examinations how many candidates on the basis of their ranking deserve to be selected on their own merits, and they must be adjusted against unreserved vacancies on their own merits as provided in the Office Memorandum dated 29.12.2005, and thereafter rest of the candidates belonging to visually impaired category must be selected against reserved category, and if the applicants are to be selected against reserved category, then they must be given appointment. The respondents shall undertake this exercise within a period of three months from today. There shall be no order as to costs.”

4. Before adverting to the grounds raised