After Supreme Court Summoned DoPT Secretary, Centre Gives Appointment To Blind Civil Services Candidate

The Supreme Court on Friday (December 20) disposed of a plea concerning the non-compliance of its earlier judgment directing the appointment of Pankaj Srivastava, a 100 percent visually impaired candidate who cleared the Civil Services Examination (CSE) in 2008.

The court had previously issued a show cause notice to the Secretary of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) for failing to implement its order.

The bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih noted that the order of appointment had been issued to Srivastava, placing him in the Indian Information Service (IIS), Group A.

Justice highlighted the recurring issue of delayed compliance of orders concerning appointment of persons with disability.

Justice Oka remarked, “Our experience is that in all these matters, unless we secure the presence of the Secretary, nothing happens. Especially matters concerning this category of people, this is happening in every case.”

In response, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta offered no justification, saying, “My apologies. I will not even venture a justification.”

Mehta informed the court that an affidavit of compliance had been filed. Srivastava's counsel confirmed the development, stating, “Now they have given me IIS.”

The court recorded in its order that the in-charge Secretary of DoPT was present virtually during the proceedings and observed that the appointment order constituted substantial compliance with its directions. The Court reiterated that the Union of India must implement the directions regarding pay fixation at the time of Srivastava's retirement, as contained in clause (c) of the operative part of the July 8 judgment. It granted Srivastava the liberty to approach the court again if proper pay fixation was not made.

While noting the delays in implementation, Justice Oka remarked, “In many matters, a fair stand is taken by the Union of India, but they delay in implementation.”

During the hearing, Justice Oka sought a copy of the relevant judgment for reference, to which the Solicitor General offered his own marked copy, remarking, “Your lordships can have my copy if you can ignore my marking; there is nothing objectionable in that.” Justice Oka observed, “We prefer reading marked copies because only the relevant portion is required to be read. So much of reading is involved.”

This prompted the Solicitor General to share a light-hearted anecdote about an eminent lawyer from Gujarat who avoided sharing his copies of marked judgments due to explicit comments written in Parsi about witnesses and depositions.

“One of our eminent counsels in Gujarat, used to write in his copy several explicits. So, he never would part with his copy to the court. Because while going through the judgements or depositions etc. he would write...Not judges, even about the witnesses. But he was Parsi and in his Parsi language he would write. And he was from Surat”, Mehta said, leading to laughter in the court.

Case no. – MA 2294/2024 in C.A. No. 3303/2015

Case Title – Union of India v. Pankaj Kumar Srivastava