*Seeking his intervention, a delegation of visually impaired persons who have been denied induction into the Civil Services, met the Prime Minister at the Parliament House complex today.*
* * *The Prime Minister gave a patient hearing. **The Prime Minister said that it is for the first time that the issue had been brought to his notice. He admitted that injustice has been done and assured the delegation that he would do everything to see that justice is rendered.* *Smt. Brinda Karat accompanied the delegation. Besides Muralidharan, Assistant Convenor of the NPRD, the delegation included visually impaired candidates -- Ajit Kumar Singh, Ms. Purnima, Subodh Kumar Singh, Pankaj Srivasatava and Shivam Kumar. * * * *The full text of the memorandum submitted to the Prime Minister is given below:* * * * * * * * November 29, 2011* *The Prime Minister* *Government of India* * * *Dear Dr. Manmohan Singhji,* This in continuation of our letter of December 11, 2010 wherein we had sought your intervention in the matter of discrimination faced by two visually impaired persons, Ajit Kumar and Ashish Singh Thakur, who despite having cleared the Civil Service Examinations in 2008, were not inducted into the IAS. Their non-induction, we had pointed out, is not only a discrimination based on disability but also militates against the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995. Section 33 of the PwD Act provides for a total three per cent reservation, of which one per cent is for people with visual disabilities. Ajit Kumar and Ashish Singh Thakur and five other civil service aspirants individually approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. The CAT clubbed all these petitions together. While it directed the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) on October 8, 2010 to induct Ajit Kumar and Ashish Singh Thakur into the IAS within eight weeks, it gave six months time for the induction of the others into IAS or allied services as per their ranks. Sadly, despite several representations and pursuing the matter at various levels including the Minster of State for Personnel & Training, Shri Narayanaswamy, the UPSC Chairman etc. this directive of the CAT has also not been complied with. Some of them had also written to your office seeking your intervention. In the meanwhile, the UPSC had sought an extension for implementing the CAT orders. The Tribunal gave it time till September 2011. Unfortunately, despite this extension, the order remains unimplemented. This is not the first time that the UPSC has sought to discriminate against the visually impaired candidates. In another instance Ravi Prakash Gupta had to approach the Delhi High Court and got an order in his favour in February 2009. Non-compliance of this order compelled him to approach the Supreme Court which upheld the High Court directive. It is only after this directive that he was finally inducted into the IAS. During the period 1996 to 2010 (the PwD Act was enacted in 1995), a total of 8812 vacancies were filled in the civil services. One per cent would mean that at least 88 seats have to be reserved for visually impaired candidates. But the UPSC in reply to a RTI query has responded that of the total 8812 vacancies it has only recommended 29 visually impaired candidates for induction. These figures are also disputed. Even if we go by this figure, a backlog of fifty nine vacancies still remains. In the case of Purnima Jain, Shravan Kumar and Subodh Kumar, the UPSC has recommended their induction in September 2011, but the orders are still awaited. In the case Pankaj Srivastava, Shivam Kumar and Rahul Mittal the UPSC has taken the plea that they have obtained low marks. This ruse is exposed by the fact that one candidate was recommended despite his having scored only 969 marks, while all the others mentioned above have secured more marks than him. And this despite the fact the visually impaired are entitled to one per cent reservation in IAS and allied services. In another case -- Pawan Kumar -- the CAT directive to allot a service based on the rank secured by him also remains unimplemented. In the light of the above, it is obvious that here is a clear case not only of discrimination against the visually impaired but also a violation of the provisions of the PwD Act. It is compounded by the fact that the concerned departments are refusing to even heed the directives of the courts. It is under these circumstances, that we have been compelled to approach you and seek your intervention. Given your concern for the disabled, we seek your intervention not only in undoing the injustice being meted out to these candidates but also in implementing the orders issued by the courts and upholding the rule of law. With regards, *(Muralidharan)* *National Platform for the Rights of the Disabled* * * *Encl: nine annexures* * * * * * * *List of Annexures* * * * * 1. *Order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 11.10.2010* 2. *Office Memorandum of 2006* 3. *Order of the Delhi High Court of 25.02.2008 – Ravi Prakash Gupta case * 4. *Order of the Supreme Court of 07.07.2010 – Ravi Prakash Gupta case* 5. *UPSC letter to Pankaj Kumar Srivastava * 6. *RTI reply with regard to vacancies for disabled & backlog* 7. *List giving total number of recommended candidates during the 1996-2010 period* 8. *List giving recommended names and mark list (after the CAT decision)* 9. *List of recommended candidates with marks (CSE 2008)* Search for old postings at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send a message to [email protected] with the subject unsubscribe. To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, please visit the list home page at http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in
