Supreme Court settles reservation in promotions for persons with disabilities: Siddaraju vs. State of Karnataka (2020) INSC 26 (14 January 2020)

Date of the Judgment: 14 January 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 26
Judges: R.F. Nariman, J., Aniruddha Bose, J., V. Ramasubramanian, J.
Can persons with disabilities be given reservation in promotions? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question, clarifying the extent of reservation for persons with disabilities in government jobs. This judgment settles the law on whether the principle of reservation in promotion applies to persons with disabilities. The three-judge bench, consisting of Justices R.F. Nariman, Aniruddha Bose, and V. Ramasubramanian, delivered a unanimous decision.

Case Background

The case originated from a reference made by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court on 03.02.2017, questioning whether persons governed by “The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995” (the 1995 Act) could be given reservation in promotion. The reference was prompted by a conflict between a previous Supreme Court ruling in *Rajiv Kumar Gupta & Others v. Union of India & Others* (2016) and the general principle against reservation in promotions laid down in *Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India & Others* (1992). The Court was tasked to clarify the extent of the 1995 Act in light of the constitutional principles.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, followed the 2005 Office Memorandum (O.M) without considering the Supreme Court judgments on the matter. The Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the question of law was kept open. The High Court in another case held that there was no provision under the Disabilities Act dealing with promotions. These conflicting views and the need for a clear interpretation of the law led to the Supreme Court’s intervention.

Legal Framework

The core of the legal framework is the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Key provisions include:

• ✓ Section 2(i) defines “disability” to include blindness, low vision, leprosy-cured, hearing impairment, locomotor disability, mental retardation, and mental illness.
• ✓ Section 2(t) defines “person with disability” as someone suffering from not less than forty per cent of any disability certified by a medical authority.
• ✓ Section 32 mandates the identification of posts that can be reserved for persons with disabilities. It states:
  
  “32. Identification of posts which can be reserved for persons with disabilities.- Appropriate Governments shall- (a) identify posts, in the establishments, which can be reserved for the persons with disability; (b) at periodical intervals not exceeding three years, review the list of posts identified and up-date the list taking into consideration the developments in technology.”
• ✓ Section 33 provides for reservation of posts, specifying that every appropriate Government shall appoint in every establishment not less than three per cent of vacancies for persons with disabilities. It states:
  
  “33. Reservation of posts.- Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less than three per cent for persons or class of persons with disability of which one per cent each shall he reserved for persons suffering from- (i) blindness or low vision; (ii) hearing impairment; (iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy, in the posts identified for each disability: Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any department or establishment, by notification subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section.”

The Supreme Court also considered Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment, and Article 16(4), which allows for reservations for backward classes. The Court clarified that reservations for persons with disabilities fall under Article 16(1) as a form of horizontal reservation, distinct from the vertical reservations under Article 16(4).

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court revolved around the interpretation of the 1995 Act and its interplay with the principle against reservation in promotions established in *Indra Sawhney*. Key arguments included:

• ✓ The Solicitor General argued that the prohibition against reservation in promotion, as laid down in *Indra Sawhney*, applies not only to Article 16(4) but also to Article 16(1) of the Constitution.
• ✓ It was contended that while preferential treatment for persons with disabilities is necessary, it should not extend to reservation in promotions.
• ✓ The respondents argued that the 1995 Act mandates reservation in identified posts, irrespective of the mode of recruitment, including promotions.
• ✓ It was argued that the principle in *Indra Sawhney* applies only to reservations for backward classes under Article 16(4) and not to persons with disabilities under Article 16(1).

The core of the argument was whether the reservation for persons with disabilities should be treated as a special category under Article 16(1), distinct from the backward classes under Article 16(4), and therefore, not subject to the same restrictions on promotions.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether persons governed under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, can be given reservation in promotion.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the 1995 Act mandates reservation in identified posts, irrespective of the mode of recruitment, including promotions. The Court clarified that the principle laid down in *Indra Sawhney* applies only to reservations for backward classes under Article 16(4) and not to persons with disabilities under Article 16(1). The Court emphasized that persons with disabilities form a separate category deserving of preferential treatment, including reservation in promotions.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court was primarily influenced by the need to ensure equal opportunities for persons with disabilities, as mandated by the 1995 Act and the Constitution. The Court emphasized that employment is key to the empowerment and inclusion of people with disabilities. The Court also highlighted that the reservation for persons with disabilities is a horizontal reservation under Article 16(1) and is distinct from the vertical reservations under Article 16(4).

Logical Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning was based on a combined reading of Sections 32 and 33 of the 1995 Act. The Court emphasized that once a post is identified as suitable for a person with a disability, reservation must follow, irrespective of the mode of recruitment. The Court also clarified that the reservation for persons with disabilities is a horizontal reservation under Article 16(1), which is distinct from the vertical reservations under Article 16(4).

The Court quoted from *Union of India and Another v. National Federation of the Blind and Others*, (2013) 10 SCC 772:

“Employment is a key factor in the empowerment and inclusion of people with disabilities. It is an alarming reality that the disabled people are out of job not because their disability comes in the way of their functioning rather it is social and practical barriers that prevent them from joining the workforce. As a result, many disabled people live in poverty and in deplorable conditions. They are denied the right to make a useful contribution to their own lives and to the lives of their families and community.”

The Court also quoted from *Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Others v. Union of India & Others*, (2016) 13 SCC 153:

“The principle laid down in Indra Sawhney is applicable only when the State seeks to give preferential treatment in the matter of employment under the State to certain classes of citizens identified to be a backward class. Article 16(4) does not disable the State from providing differential treatment (reservations) to other classes of citizens under Article 16(1) if they otherwise deserve such treatment.”

The Court also stated:

“Once a post is identified, it means that a PWD is fully capable of discharging the functions associated with the identified post. Once found to be so capable, reservation under Section 33 to an extent of not less than three per cent must follow. Once the post is identified, it must be reserved for PWD irrespective of the mode of recruitment adopted by the State for filling up of the said post.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Reservation in promotions is applicable to persons with disabilities in identified posts.
• ✓ The principle against reservation in promotions, as laid down in *Indra Sawhney*, does not apply to persons with disabilities.
• ✓ The computation of reservation for persons with disabilities should be on the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength.
• ✓ The manner of identification of posts must be uniform for all groups (A, B, C, and D).
• ✓ The judgment reinforces the commitment to equal opportunities and inclusion for persons with disabilities.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the judgments in *Union of India and Another v. National Federation of the Blind and Others*, (2013) 10 SCC 772 as clarified in *National Federation of the Blind vs. Sanjay Kothari, Secy. Deptt. of Personnel and Training*, 2015 (9) Scale 611 and *Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Others v. Union of India & Others*, (2016) 13 SCC 153 must be strictly followed by the Union and State Governments. The Court also set aside the judgments of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Courts that were inconsistent with these decisions.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that reservation in promotions is applicable to persons with disabilities, and the principle in *Indra Sawhney* does not apply to them. This judgment clarifies the law and ensures that persons with disabilities are not denied equal opportunities in public employment, including promotions. The judgment overrules the previous position that reservation in promotions does not apply to persons with disabilities.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in *Siddaraju vs. State of Karnataka* clarifies that persons with disabilities are entitled to reservation in promotions. This decision settles the legal position, ensuring that the rights of persons with disabilities are protected and that they have equal opportunities in public employment. The Court emphasized that the 1995 Act mandates reservation in identified posts, irrespective of the mode of recruitment, including promotions.