Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
PAWAN KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Mr. Ashok Anand, Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh and Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Advs.
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.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
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[1] 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, 2010 (7) SCC 626 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:
6. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition, which remained pending for a considerable period. As per the affidavit of the Petitioner, as sworn in November 2016, the Petitioner was about 37 years of age at that time and is presently more than 46 years old.
7. On 10.01.2017, this Court, while issuing notice, recorded that another candidate belonging to the disabled category, namely Ashish Singh Thakur, who had initially been allocated the Indian Postal Service and was subsequently offered the Indian Foreign Service, had not joined the said service and was pursuing his claim for the Indian Administrative Service before the Tribunal. In that context, the Court observed that the Petitioner, having accepted and joined the Indian Postal Service without demur, could not claim appointment to the Indian Foreign Service against the vacancy earlier held by the said candidate. The Court, however, took note of the Petitioner’s contention that one Yashwant G.V., who had been offered the Indian Foreign Service under the disabled candidate category, was later found not to be entitled to the benefit of the Disabilities Act and that the Tribunal had not examined the Petitioner’s claim for allocation against the vacancy arising therefrom. Notice was accordingly issued, though interim relief was declined.
8. In response, the Union of India filed written statement explaining the adjustment of vacancies occupied by Sh. Yashwant G.V. in paras 2 to 6, which are extracted as under:
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and with their able assistance, perused the material on record.
10. Learned counsel representing the Petitioner submits that the vacancy in the Indian Foreign Service, which had initially been kept blocked on account of Yashwant G.V., ought to have been allocated to him once the said candidate was found ineligible to be treated as a visually impaired candidate and was subsequently accommodated in the Indian Administrative Service against a supernumerary post. It is contended that denial of such consideration is arbitrary and contrary to the benefit of reservation available to candidates in the PH category.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondents submits that no vacancy in the Indian Foreign Service referable to CSE-2009 is presently available. It is pointed out that the vacancy which had become available on account of Yashwant G.V. was carried forward and stood filled in UPSC Civil Service Examination – 2011 as stated in paragraph 06 of the written statement dated 02.04.2024, and therefore, no direction for allocation to the Petitioner can now be issued.
12. Having considered the rival submissions and the material placed on record, this Court finds that the foundational premise of the Petitioner’s claim, namely the availability of a vacancy in the visually impaired sub-category in the Indian Foreign Service for Civil Services Examination, 2009, is not borne out. The record indicates that no vacancy was earmarked for the visually impaired sub-category in PH Vacancies in the Indian Foreign Service for the said examination year.
13. The vacancy which had remained blocked on account of Yashwant G.V. was not a reserved vacancy for the visually impaired sub-category and, in any event, stood carried forward and already filled in the subsequent cycle of Civil Services Examination, 2011. In the absence of a demonstrable reserved vacancy in the concerned service and recruitment year, no enforceable right to allocation can arise, and the concept of carry-forward of backlog cannot be invoked in the abstract so as to claim allotment dehors the notified vacancy position. This factual position has not been demonstrated to be incorrect.
14. It is also to be noted that the Petitioner accepted his allocation to the Indian Postal Service (IPoS) and joined the said service without demur. The challenge to non-allocation to a service higher in preference was raised only thereafter.
15. The Petitioner has remained a member of the IPoS for over fourteen years. The present Writ Petition itself has remained pending for a considerable period, and the Petitioner is now over forty-six years of age. At this stage, any direction for reallocation to another service would unsettle a long-standing position and inevitably impinge upon the rights of other candidates who are serving in their respective allotted services, and have not been impleaded as a party in this Writ Petition.
16. The exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is governed by principles of equity. The Petitioner’s long-standing acquiescence in his current service, coupled with the absence of a demonstrable reserved vacancy in the IFS for the recruitment year CSE-2009, precludes the grant of any discretionary relief. We find no jurisdictional error or patent illegality in the Impugned Order passed by the Tribunal
17. In view of the foregoing discussion, no ground is made out for interference with the Impugned Order. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. AMIT MAHAJAN, J. FEBRUARY 20, 2026 sp/ad