5 Aug 2021 11:30 AM GMT
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday expressed displeasure over failure of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to file its response to a plea challenging preliminary examination notice for direct recruitment to civil services in the year 2020, on the ground that it neglects the minimum reservation to be provided to disabled persons."Did you get any exemption or did you presume...
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday expressed displeasure over failure of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to file its response to a plea challenging preliminary examination notice for direct recruitment to civil services in the year 2020, on the ground that it neglects the minimum reservation to be provided to disabled persons.
"Did you get any exemption or did you presume exemption? There is a provision in the Indian Evidence Act. Once there is an order of the court and you're not complying, presumption will go against you," a Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh told CGSC Manish Mohan who was appearing for the authority.
The Bench added,
"Rule is reservation; exemption is exception!"
Moved by Sambhavana Society and Evara Foundation, the petitions claimed that that not enough seats were reserved for those with visual and multiple disabilities in accordance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act, 2016.
Advocates Pankaj Sinha and DK Mahajan for the Petitioners claimed that the total vacancies in 2020 were 796 and ideally 4% reservation (culminating into 32 seats) was to be given under the RPWD Act. However, only 24 seats allocated to the category.
The Centre had on the other hand informed the Court that as per Cadre Controlling Authorities of four services- IPS, RPF, DANIPS and PONDIPS- the vacancies in their Services cannot be reserved for the persons with benchmark disabilities under Section 34(1) of RPWD Act.
Accordingly, Standing counsel Manish Mohan claimed that the vacancy was finally notified for 836 seats. Out of these, no reservation can be given for 251 seats. Thus, the 4% quota was calculated on the remaining 585 seats which turns out to be 24; whereas reservation was granted on 25 seats.
Responding to this, the Petitioners had contend that none of the four Services enjoy exemption under the second Proviso to Section 34(1) of the Act and were thus obliged to reserve vacancies in favour of Persons with Benchmark Disabilities in accordance with the mandate.
On the last date, the Court had thus asked DoPT to clarify the seat allocation. However, the affidavit was not filed and interview process commenced on August 2.
"Statutory reservation is there. As far as possible, it should be in favour of those persons. Rule is reservation; exemption is exception," the Bench remarked while fixing the matter for hearing on August 9, Monday.
It also told the Government that "functional classification" is necessary for conducting interviews and orally suggested that the results may be kept in a "sealed cover" till final outcome of the case.
Case Title: Sambhava v. UOI