UPSC filed a writ petition to set aside Central Administrative Tribunal orders which allotted a physically handicapped candidate a post. The Court observed UPSC's role ended upon forwarding the case to the Ministry for allocation, dismissing the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~28
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ravinder Agarwal and Mr. Lekh Raj Singh, Advocates.
versus
SHRI RAJENDER SINGH & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. A.K. Behera, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Sonika Gill, Advocate for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
J U D G M E N T (oral)
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 14573/2022 Page 1 of 5
Digitally Signed By:UMANG KHANNA Signing Da te:1 3.09.2024 16:47
Category and had secured 88th Rank in Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering. He held 4th position in the merit list prepared by the UPSC for 10 candidates for disabilities. He was provisionally allotted Indian Railway Service of Signal Engineers against one vacancy earmarked for Orthopedically Handicapped category of disability. His disability was assessed by the Competent Authority who opined that as 70 % “BL-Both Legs affected but not arms” with remarks that „likely to improve‟. However, the Competent Authority vide order dated 28.10.2013 decided to conduct Review Medical Board, who vide order dated 16.04.2014 declared him „unfit‟ for all services on account of weakness of both legs and thereby, his candidature engaged PH vacancy was found not feasible.
“UPSC issued notification dated 10.03.2012 for conducting the ESE - 2012 to the services/posts
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 14573/2022 Page 2 of 5
Digitally Signed By:UMANG KHANNA Signing Da te:1 3.09.2024 16:47
under different categories for different Departments/Ministries, with the following functional classifications as mentioned in Para 9 of the notification:-
“Code Functions BL 1. both legs affected but one arms. BA 2. Both arms affected. a. impaired reach b. weakness of grip
BLA 3. both legs and both arms affected OL 4. One leg affected (R or L) a. impaired reach b. Weakness of grip c. ataxic OA 5. One arm affected (R or L) a. Impaired reach b. Weakness of grip c. ataxic”
10. XXXXXX
11. The applicant was medically examined by Railway Hospital at Jaipur on 15.07.2013 and provisionally allotted a post in IRSSE by Indian Railway Board. However, when the sub category of the applicant, i.e., weakness in both legs, was not found in conformity with other functional classifications for which vacancies were reserved for various services/posts, a review was directed. It is noted that there was no vacancy reserved for BL category in Electronics and Telecommunication discipline, and the vacancies against sub categories in OA/OL were available. The respondent no.1, in all fairness, again advised the Medical Board to review its decision about the services for which applicant was suitable for the vacancy reserved for PH. Even, on review, the Medical Board found him
W.P.(C) 14573/2022 Page 3 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:UMANG KHANNA Signing Da te:1 3.09.2024 16:47
medically unfìt on account of weakness of both lower limbs. The respondent no.1 has also shown that the posts in IRSSE against ESE - 2012 were reserved for OA and OL and not for BL category. Since there is no post reserved for BL category in the respondent no.1 department, the Tribunal cannot direct the respondent no.1 to reconsider the case of the applicant.”
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 14573/2022 Page 4 of 5
Digitally Signed By:UMANG KHANNA Signing Da te:1 3.09.2024 16:47
of the respondent No.1 has already been forwarded to respondents No.2 & 3 i.e. Ministry of Railways and the allocation has to be done by the concerned Ministry. However, it is not disputed that respondent No. 1 has already initiated the contempt proceedings against the petitioner. In such facts of the case, this Court finds that the decision on respondent‟s case has to be now taken by respondents No.2 & 3 and the role assigned to the petitioner-UPSC is over once the case has been forwarded to respondents No.2 & 3 in compliance of directions passed by the learned Tribunal.
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J
GIRISH KATHPALIA, J
SEPTEMBER 9, 2024 MR /r
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 14573/2022 Page 5 of 5
Digitally Signed By:UMANG KHANNA Signing Da te:1 3.09.2024 16:47
3 issues framed by the court
Whether UPSC can challenge the Tribunal order directing it to forward the respondent's case for allocation of post when the final call for appointment rests with the Ministry of Railways.
If the role of UPSC is over once the case is forwarded, does any substantive dispute survive in the present petition for disposal.
How to dispose of a writ petition seeking setting aside of Tribunal order where the issue is decided by another authority.
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
SHRI RAJENDER SINGH
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
GIRISH KATHPALIA
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
