How the Delhi High Court fulfilled a Shardul Amarchand lawyer’s civils dream

After years of fighting for what was due to her, Shardul Amarchand lawyer Shweta Bansal has realised her dream of joining the Indian civil services..The Delhi High Court last week directed the Centre to issue Bansal, a graduate of NUJS Kolkata, an appointment letter to the Indian Foreign Service. This, after she was denied appointment to the civil services even after being shortlisted for selection on clearing the examinations held in 2012..Bansal, a differently-abled candidate with locomotor disability, secured a rank of 769 and was one of the selectees in the list of 998 candidates recommended for appointment to various services..However, when the final allocation of services was made, her name was missing from the list. The reason? She had opted for only 8 services out of 24 in her application form and did not qualify for any of those..Her case also exposes the arbitrary manner in which the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 were implemented. Section 33 of the Act, provides for reservation of 3% posts for persons or class of persons with disability, of which 1% is to be reserved for persons suffering from (i) blindness or low vision; (ii) hearing impairment and (iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy in the posts identified for each disability..However, during the allocation of services after the 2012 examination, this reservation was not uniformly applied across the three classes of disability..Says Bansal,.“They had a very vague, discretionary policy for allocation of service. Someone who got 930 got into IFS, someone with 846 got into IAS, granted for different disability. But the point is, you are compromising on merit somewhere..At the time of filling in the application after clearing the mains, the candidates were given to believe that every type of disability would be covered for each service. When the allocation list comes, you get to know that they do not have a vacancy in the service of your choice. Instead, they decide on their own that a particular kind of disability merits a quota. There was a huge lacuna in terms of policy and law.”.In an attempt to set things right, she approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, which held that she was entitled to choose from any of the services, except the IFS..Dissatisfied with the CAT’s ruling, she proceeded to approach the Delhi High Court. A bench of Sanjiv Khanna and Najmi Waziri JJ reserved judgment in the case on May 31 of this year and pronounced the judgment on July 29..Bansal was represented by Rajshekhar Rao and Zehra Khan in the High Court..During the course of the hearings, the court noted that Bansal could not qualify for any of the services or posts mentioned in her order of preferences, as there was no reservation for persons with locomotor disability in the IFS, or the Indian Audit and Accounts Service..In an order dated May 17, the respondents were directed to answer a few queries, including why there was no reservation in the IFS for those with locomotive disability. It was revealed that even though there was a post in the IFS reserved for locomotive disability, the same was not allotted..In fact, the respondents admitted to the mistake and sought to rectify it appointing another person as against the post for the next year’s exam. This, according to the court, was contrary to Section 36 of the Disabilities Act, which mandates that unfilled vacancies should be included in the next recruitment..The court held,.“The petitioner cannot and should not undergo lifelong anguish and grief for this omission of the respondents… Once the respondents had learnt about the said error and lapse, they should have immediately offered the said post to the petitioner.”.Consequently, the court directed the respondents to issue a selection letter to the IFS to Bansal. So as not to affect the promotions of officers of the 2012 batch, the court held,.“Further, this prior period till the date of actual appointment would not be treated as actual service qualifying for promotion. Consequently, promotions already made shall not be disturbed as a result of the relief granted to the petitioner….…the entire period commencing from the date she would have been ordinarily appointed would be treated as a part of her continuous service for all purposes including the retiral benefits and fixation of seniority.”.An elated Bansal has much gratitude for her employers as well as the lawyers who represented her in court..She says,.“Shardul and Pallavi [Shroff] have been like de facto parents in making this dream a possibility. I also want to thank Rajshekhar and Zehra for taking up this case pro bono. It goes to show that there is some nobility in the legal profession.”.Read the judgment: