Delhi High Court Addresses Alleged Irregularities in IAS Allocation for Visually Disabled Candidates
A visually impaired candidate has approached the Delhi High Court, challenging what she describes as irregularities in the medical assessment process for disability status in the Civil Services Examination (CSE) of 2013. The petitioner, Ganatra Komal Pravinbhai, claims these irregularities cost her a place in the Indian Administrative Services (IAS), as outlined in the case Ganatra Komal Pravinbhai v. Union of India & Ors..
Pravinbhai alleges that two other candidates were improperly certified as disabled, allowing them to secure positions meant for candidates with disabilities, effectively denying her a reserved IAS seat. She asserts that these candidates, who ranked higher, were initially deemed ineligible for disabled quota reservations by both a medical board and an appellate body. However, a subsequent Review Medical Board, which the petitioner refers to as a “Super Appellate Board,” was convened, reversing the earlier decisions and granting these candidates the benefits of disability reservation.
The petitioner has raised questions about the legality of establishing such a “Super Appellate Board.” On September 3, the High Court directed the Central government to clarify whether the practice of forming Review Medical Boards after appellate decisions is standard procedure. This order was issued by a Bench comprising Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain. The court specifically instructed the Union of India to submit an affidavit from an official of at least Secretary rank, detailing whether this practice is consistently applied.
Pravinbhai, who ranked 592nd in the 2012 Civil Services Exam, was allocated a position in the Armed Forces Headquarters (AFHQ) Civil Service. She contends that she should have received a reserved IAS position for candidates with blindness or low vision. The dispute involves two candidates, Shailaja Sharma and Lipin Raj MP, who ranked 39th and 224th, respectively. Sharma was allocated an IAS position, while Lipin Raj was placed in the Indian Railway Personnel Service (IRPS).
The petitioner argues that both the Medical Board and the Appellate Medical Board had initially found Sharma and Lipin Raj ineligible for disability reservation under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Despite this, a Review Medical Board was subsequently formed, granting them the reservation benefits. Pravinbhai claims this further review was orchestrated to skew the process in favor of these candidates, contrary to the CSE 2012 rules, which only anticipated a Medical Board and an Appellate Medical Board.
More Read
Pravinbhai initially sought relief from the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in 2013, which dismissed her challenge in November 2018. The CAT found no errors in Sharma’s IAS allocation and maintained that the disability-certification framework allowed for additional examination, a practice not prohibited by CSE rules. The tribunal also noted that altering service allocations after several years could lead to significant disruptions.
Undeterred, Pravinbhai has appealed the CAT’s decision, seeking an IAS allocation against a reserved, backlog, or supernumerary vacancy. The case is scheduled for its next hearing on September 14. Advocates Amit George, Shashwat Kabi, and others represented the petitioner. The Centre was represented by advocates Jaswinder Singh, Vedansh Anand, and Shivam Kumar. Advocate SM Zulfiqar Alam appeared for the UPSC, while Senior Advocate KK Rai and others represented Shailaja Sharma. Advocate Padmakumar S appeared for Lipin Raj MP.
