$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 13.02.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 20.02.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 20.02.2026 + W.P.(C) 64/2017 PAWAN KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Mr.

Ashok Anand, Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh and Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rohan Jaitley, CGSC with Mr. Varun Pratap Singh, Mr. Dev Pratap Shahi and Mr.

Yogya Bhatia, Advs. for UOI.

SI Prashant Malik for the State.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:

1. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition assailing the order dated 31.05.2016 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’] passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’] in O.A. No. 225/2013, whereby his Original Application came to be dismissed.

2. In order to appreciate the issues which arise for consideration in the present case, the relevant facts may briefly be noticed.

3. Pursuant to the Recruitment Notice of the Union Public Service Commission Civil Services Examination, 2009, the Petitioner participated in the selection process and, upon being declared successful, was placed at Rank 860 in the general merit list and at Rank 5 in the sub-category of Visually Impaired candidates. On the basis of the said selection, he was allocated to and appointed in the Armed Forces Headquarters Service.

4. The Petitioner’s case is that subsequent to his appointment, the decision of the Supreme Court in Government of India v. Ravi Prakash Gupta, 2010 (7) SCC 626 clarified that reservation for persons with disabilities is not dependent upon prior identification of posts and that backlog vacancies are required to be computed from the date of enforcement of the Disabilities Act, 1995. Placing reliance thereon, the Petitioner claimed consideration against vacancies in the disabled category in the Civil Services.

5. The Petitioner initially instituted O.A. No. 4026/2010 seeking allocation to a service higher in his preference. The said Original Application was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 15.02.2011 with a direction to the Respondents to consider his candidature for the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and other services in accordance with his preferences. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner was re-allocated to the Indian Postal Service on 09.01.2012, which he joined. After a lapse of nearly one year, the Petitioner instituted a second Original Application, being O.A. No. 225/2013, seeking directions to the Respondents for his appointment against 1% vacancies earmarked for visually impaired candidates in the alleged backlog vacancies. The said Original Application came to be dismissed by the Tribunal vide Order dated 31.05.2016. Relevant findings in Paragraphs 13 and 14 are extracted as under:

“13. The backlog vacancies are required to be carried forward only for two years. Normally the selections are to be confined to the vacancies notified. All the Government Departments and Ministries are legally bound to implement the provisions of the Disabilities Act, 1995, including the provisions of Section 33 of the Act which provides for reserving the posts for the PH candidates. The Act also provides mechanism for enforcement of the rights of PH persons. It stipulates appointment of Chief Commissioner and Commissioners, empowers them amply to enforce the rights of such persons (Sections 57-63 of the Act). The proceedings before these Commissioners are to be judicial proceedings. Hence, it can be safely assumed that no Ministry/Department can dare violate the provisions of the Act.

14. The respondents have clearly stated-in their replies that no backlog vacancies are available in IAS or IFS for accommodating the applicant, which gets further fortified from the fact that the backlog vacancies cannot be carried forward for more than two years. Taking all these factors