Background:
On December 20, the Supreme Court disposed of a petition concerning the non-compliance with its earlier order directing the appointment of Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, a 100% visually impaired candidate who had cleared the Civil Services Examination (CSE) in 2008. The petition arose from the Union Government’s failure to implement the Court’s directive for Srivastava’s appointment, leading to a show-cause notice being issued to the Secretary of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT).
Court’s Findings:
The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih, noted that Srivastava had been appointed to the Indian Information Service (IIS), Group A, as per the Court’s order. This was a positive development as the appointment had been a long-awaited relief for the candidate, but the case underscored the continuing issue of delayed compliance in cases involving persons with disabilities.
Justice Oka emphasized that delays in implementation of judicial orders, particularly concerning appointments of persons with disabilities, were recurring issues. He remarked that, in similar matters, compliance only occurred after the Court ensured the Secretary’s presence during proceedings.
Recurrent Issue of Delayed Implementation:
Justice Oka expressed frustration with the systemic delays, noting that without directly engaging the Secretary, orders often remained unimplemented. He said, “Our experience is that in all these matters, unless we secure the presence of the Secretary, nothing happens.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union of India, apologized for the delay but did not offer any justification. He informed the Court that an affidavit of compliance had been filed. Srivastava’s counsel confirmed that the appointment had been finalized, and Srivastava had been placed in the IIS.
Further Directions:
The Court recorded that the in-charge Secretary of DoPT had appeared virtually during the proceedings, and the appointment order constituted substantial compliance with its directions. However, the Court emphasized that the directions regarding the pay fixation at the time of Srivastava’s retirement, as outlined in the operative part of its previous judgment, must still be implemented.
The Court specifically granted Srivastava the liberty to approach the Court again if the proper pay fixation was not carried out. This was to ensure that Srivastava’s financial entitlements were addressed appropriately.
Judicial Anecdote and Lighter Moments:
During the proceedings, Justice Oka requested a copy of the relevant judgment for reference. The Solicitor General offered his marked copy of the judgment but jokingly remarked that the Court could use it, despite his annotations, as there was “nothing objectionable” in the markings. This led to a lighthearted moment in the courtroom, where Justice Oka noted that marked copies often helped as they focused only on the relevant portions of the judgment, minimizing unnecessary reading.
Solicitor General Mehta shared an amusing anecdote about a prominent lawyer from Gujarat who would mark his copies of judgments in a way that made them unsuitable for sharing. Mehta humorously mentioned that the lawyer’s annotations were in Parsi, and due to the nature of the notes, he would not share his marked copies in the Court, leading to laughter.
Court’s Observations on Compliance Delays:
While noting that the Union of India had taken a fair stand, Justice Oka expressed concern over the delay in implementing orders. He remarked that in many cases, while the Union’s stance was reasonable, the actual implementation was often significantly delayed. This sentiment highlighted the ongoing challenges in ensuring timely justice and compliance with judicial directions.
Case Outcome and Future Directions:
The Supreme Court disposed of the petition after recording the progress made in Srivastava’s appointment and reiterating the need for timely compliance in cases involving the rights of persons with disabilities. The Court’s decision serves as a reminder of the challenges faced by disabled candidates in the public service recruitment process, and the need for prompt implementation of judicial orders.
Case Title: Union of India v. Pankaj Kumar Srivastava
Case Number: MA 2294/2024 in C.A. No. 3303/2015
Lawcutor 