The central legal point established is that the Disabilities Act entitles differently-abled candidates to allocation and that the failure to include a reserved post for the petitioner was a lapse.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

1. The present litigation is a chronicle of Ms. Shweta Bansal's perseverance and determination.

2. Ms. Shweta Bansal, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, by this writ petition impugns the order dated 1st May, 2014 passed by the Principal Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi (the tribunal, for short) in OA No. 3062/2013.

3. The petitioner, a differently-abled candidate with locomotor disability, invokes and relies on the provisions of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (Disabilities Act). She had appeared in the Civil Services Examination, 2012 (CSE 2012). Having secured 769th position or rank in the order of merit, the petitioner was one of the selectees in the list of 998 candidates recommended for appointment to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), Indian Foreign Service (IFS), Indian Police Service (IPS) and other Central Services ( Group A and B). This list included 457 general candidates and 53 physically challenged candidates. However, when the final allocation of services was made, the petitioner was not allocated any service and her name was missing from the list. The reason given by the respondents was that the petitioner had opted for only 8 services out of 24 in her application form for the CSE-2012 and she could not be selected in the said services as an open category candidate or as a physically challenged candidate.

4. Aggrieved, the petitioner had approached the tribunal vide aforesaid OA No. 3062/2012, with the following prayers:-

“(a) Direct the respondents to allot the applicant Indian Administrative Service or Indian Foreign Service. Alternatively, allow the applicant to 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.

(b) Pass any other order or direction that this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem it fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice and equity.”

5. Before the Tribunal, the respondents, in contrast to their earlier stand, had averred that the Ministry of Defence had been asked to grant relaxation in the case of the petitioner and further action would be taken on receipt of their reply. The respondents professed that they would be happy to accommodate the petitioner provided the Ministry of Defence would agree to accommodate her in the cadre of the Armed Forces Headquarter Service.

6. The petitioner dissented and protested, as she did not want to join the Armed Forces Headquarter Service. She has reiterated the said stance and position before us.

7. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal after referring to several facets, including the fact that the IFS was included and identified as an eligible service for persons with locomotor disability, has given the following directions:

“We, therefore, dispose of this Original Application with the following directives:-

(i) 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 t here services where the applicant has not been careful enough in filling up the form.

(ii) This order should be implemented within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

(iii) There shall be no order as to costs.”

8. The petitioner is not satisfied and has pressed that she was entitled to allotment of a post in either IAS or IFS.

9. The Disabilities Act, under Section 33, provides for reservation of 3%