Hey folks, You can get soft copy from Delhi highcourt website I don't have any Idia of hard copy. Thanks in advance ----- Original Message ----- From: "Amiyo Biswas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <accessindia@accessindia.org.in> Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 12:13 PM Subject: Re: [AI] A land mark judgement of reservation of VH in promotion
> Hello, > > I need a hard copy or the web site of the judgement for my own benefit. > How > can I obtain it? > > > Best regards, > > Amiyo. > > Cell: +91-9433464329 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Harshvardhan Singh Negi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <accessindia@accessindia.org.in> > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 11:47 AM > Subject: [AI] A land mark judgement of reservation of VH in promotion > > >> Kindly find the judgement of Delhi highcourt regarding Reservation in > promotion of VH >> >> IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI >> >> >> >> WP (C) Nos. 11818 and 13627-28/2004 >> >> >> >> 07.12.2007 >> >> >> >> Pronounced on : December 07, 2007 >> >> >> >> # Union of India thru G.M. Northern Railway .....Petitioner in >> >> WP(C) No. >> >> 11818/2004 >> >> Chairman, Railway Board ....Petitioner in WP(C) No. >> >> 13627-28/2004 >> >> ! through : Mr. >> >> V.S.R. Krishna with >> >> Mr. B.S. Rajesh Agrajit >> >> >> >> VERSUS >> >> >> >> $ Jagmohan Singh .....Respondent in >> >> WP(C) No. >> >> 11818/2004 >> >> Northern Railway Physically Handicapped >> >> Employees Welfare Association and Ors. >> >> ......Respondent in WP(C) No. >> >> 13627-28/2004 >> >> ! through : Dr. Harish >> >> Uppal for the >> >> respondent in WP(C) >> >> No.11818/2004 >> >> Mr.A.K. Behera for the >> >> respondent in WP(C) No. >> >> 13627-28/2004 >> >> CORAM :- >> >> THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI >> >> THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI >> >> >> >> 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? >> >> 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? >> >> 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? >> >> >> >> A.K. SIKRI, J. >> >> 1.The question that arises for consideration in these cases is as to > whether 3% >> >> reservation under Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal >> >> Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 >> >> {hereinafter referred to as the 'Disability Act'} in the public >> employment >> >> provided in favour of the physically handicapped persons would be > available to >> >> them even for promotions as well. The Tribunal has, vide the impugned > judgment, >> >> decided this question in the affirmative. Not satisfied with this opinion > of >> >> >> >> the Tribunal, in these writ petitions the said judgment was assailed by > the >> >> Government. It would be advisable to take note of the factual matrix >> under >> >> which the aforesaid question arises for consideration from WP (C) No. > 11818/04. >> >> >> >> 2.The respondent herein is an orthopaedically handicapped person having > 55% >> >> disability. He was appointed as LDC in the Northern Railways on >> 16.6.1972. > He >> >> got promotions from time to time and has risen to the rank of Office >> >> Superintendent Grade-I (OS-I). Next promotion is to the post of Chief > Office >> >> Superintendent (COS). Two posts of COS were created by the petitioner on > the >> >> recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission vide letter dated > 10.5.1998. >> >> They are to be filled up as a one time relaxation following the process >> of >> >> modified selection as per the Railway Board's communication dated >> February > 1999. >> >> It is not in dispute that the existing instructions with regard to > reservations >> >> of SC/ST have been observed to be continued in the new grades. >> >> >> >> 3.Even before the Disability Act came into force in the year 1996, the >> >> Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training vide OM dated >> >> 28.2.1986 had provided for reservations in jobs for physically >> handicapped >> >> persons in Group C and D posts. The posts on which such reservation was >> to > be >> >> applied were identified by the Railway Board on 10.7.1987. As many as 253 > jobs >> >> in Group C and 17 in Group D were identified where physically handicapped >> >> persons could be appointed. The post in question, namely, Chief Office >> >> Superintendent is a Group C post. The Government of India, Ministry of >> >> Personnel issued a memorandum on 20.11.1989 providing reservation for > physically >> >> handicapped in the posts filled by promotion. This has to be implemented > by all >> >> Ministries and Departments. By Disability Act coming into force on > 7.2.1996, a >> >> mandatory requirement of providing 3% reservation in appointments has >> been > made, >> >> which included handicap in vision, hearing and locomotion. However, this > is >> >> with a rider that having regard to the type of work in any establishment, > the >> >> appropriate Government by way of a notification exempt any department or >> >> establishment from reserving the posts for disabled persons. Memorandum > dated >> >> 16.1.1998 provides 100 point roster for reserved posts for physically >> >> handicapped and point No.1 is reserved for physically handicapped. OM > dated >> >> 18.2.1997 issued by the Ministry of Personnel provides reservation as per > roster >> >> to the physically handicapped persons in Group A and B posts and also OM > dated >> >> 4.7.1997 providing roster points No. 1, 24, 67 in the cycle of 100 > vacancies for >> >> 100 point roster to be reserved for physically handicapped persons. >> >> >> >> 4.The respondent herein wanted that for appointment to the post of COS >> >> reservation for physically handicapped persons be also made in tune with > such >> >> reservations having provided for SC/ST candidates. We may, however, note > that >> >> prior to the enactment of the Disability Act, the Ministry of Railways >> had > taken >> >> a decision on 5.12.1995 that for the posts which are to be filled by > promotion, >> >> reservations for physically handicapped persons would not be given >> keeping > in >> >> view the special nature of job and safe carriage of goods and passengers. >> >> However, after the Disability Act came into force, the respondent made >> >> representations, both individually as well as through his Association >> i.e. >> >> Northern Railway Physically Handicapped Employees Welfare Association, to >> >> provide such reservation even when the posts are to be filled by > promotion. >> >> These representations were not responded to by the Railway Authorities. > The >> >> respondent, thus, filed OA No. 3108/2002 which was disposed of with the >> >> directions to consider the representation of the respondent in the light > of OM >> >> dated 20.11.1989. The Department considered the representation and turned > down >> >> the same vide its decision dated 26.4.2002 and 25.3.2003. As the > authorities >> >> did not accede to the respondent's demand, he filed second OA being OA >> No. >> >> 2633/2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, >> New >> >> >> >> Delhi. That is how the question posed at the outset came for >> consideration >> >> before the Tribunal. >> >> >> >> 5.Perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal would reveal that the case of > the >> >> respondent before it was that once the Government had taken a decision to >> >> introduce reservation for physically handicapped persons in Group C and D > posts, >> >> and the post of COS was a Group C post, reservation had to be provided in > this >> >> post as well and it could not be exempted on the purported ground that > such a >> >> reservation was not possible because of the safe carriage of goods and >> >> passengers. It was stressed that job of COS is an office job and the >> >> disability, insofar as the physically handicapped is concerned, is in no > manner >> >> going to put hindrance in the discharge of duties. The petitioner had > given the >> >> following justification for not adopting the instructions of DoPT dated >> >> 20.11.1989 :- >> >> >> >> (i) Every post at the lowest grade of entry has an avenue of promotion. >> >> Some of the promotions, e.g. Khallasi to Khallasi Helper, Junior Clerk to > Senior >> >> Clerk, Junior Chargeman to Senior Chargeman etc. are more or less based >> on >> >> proportionate distribution between the two grades, the higher grade being > the >> >> compensation for more experience gained in basically the same nature of > duties. >> >> However, in more senior grades the nature of duties become markedly > different, >> >> involving far greater mobility and far wider range of knowledge and >> >> responsibilities. This fact has been recognized by placing a selection > between >> >> the lowest grades and the next higher grade. The selection procedures are >> >> necessarily stringent so as to ensure that only the really capable in all >> >> respects are put out to shoulder the much higher responsibilities > devolving in >> >> the higher grade. >> >> >> >> (ii) Difficulty in implementing reservation for physically handicapped in >> >> higher grades filled by promotion involving supervisory duties requiring > fair >> >> amount of mobility and visual acuity. >> >> >> >> (iii) In some cases promotions may involve transfer from the existing >> >> place of duty of the physically handicapped posting problem attendant on >> >> dislocation of the physically handicapped. >> >> >> >> (iv) It has not been possible to fill the 3% quota prescribed for >> >> recruitment of physically handicapped persons in identified posts from >> the > open >> >> market. In fact there is a considerable backlog, the main reasons being >> >> availability of limited number of posts/ categories identified for > appointment >> >> of physically handicapped as against computation of vacancies for this > purpose >> >> on the number of direct recruitment in both identified as well as > non-identified >> >> categories. In this background with adequate number of physically > handicapped >> >> persons no being there in the feeder grade we will be faced with a > situation of >> >> perennial backlog and carry forward. >> >> >> >> (v) Reservation in posts filled by promotion for physically handicapped >> >> employee has also not been found necessary in view of the > non-discriminatory >> >> provisions in place in the Railways in the matter of their promotion >> along > with >> >> others subject to their passing selection/suitability/trade test, as > enjoined in >> >> Section 47(2) of the Disability Act. >> >> >> >> (vi) Reservation as prescribed for physically handicapped is already >> being >> >> followed at the initial stage of recruitment from the open market in >> posts >> >> identified for being manned by appropriate category of handicapped as > enjoined >> >> in Section 33 of the Disability Act. >> >> >> >> (vii) The Railways, being an operational transport organization, >> basically >> >> responsible for the safe carriage of goods and passengers, reservation in >> >> promotion for promotion for physically handicapped has not been found to > be >> >> necessary. >> >> >> >> 6.The Tribunal, in this detailed judgment, did not find favour with any >> of > the >> >> arguments of the petitioner herein. It opined that having regard to the >> >> objectives in providing such reservations, the benefit thereof had to be > given >> >> to the respondent, more so when the post in question to which promotion >> is > to be >> >> made is a Group C post and OM dated 20.11.1989 specifically provides for >> >> reservation in Group C posts. The Tribunal, thus, found that the alleged > policy >> >> decision was totally arbitrary and without any rational or reasonable > grounds. >> >> It went on to observe that it was a glaring example of arbitrariness and >> >> unreasonable classification, inasmuch as, for the same post of COS, in >> the >> >> normal channel, the respondent could be considered and promoted and > physical >> >> disability was not an impediment while, ironically, it becomes impediment > when >> >> benefit of reservation is to be given. >> >> >> >> 7.Before us similar arguments were advanced by the petitioner on the >> basis > of >> >> which the respondent's application was contested. It was stated in the > first >> >> instance that Section 33 of the Disability Act does not provide for a >> >> reservation in the promotional post. Submission was that the expression >> >> ?vacancies? occurring in Section 33 would relate to the vacancies only at >> >> induction level and not while making promotions. It was again stressed > that >> >> though promotion was not to be denied to a person merely on the ground of > his >> >> disability, at the same time, it was even the province of the appropriate >> >> Government to give regard to the type of work carried on in any > establishment >> >> and on that basis decide as to whether for a particular job any such > reservation >> >> is to be given to the persons suffering from disability, as provided in > Section >> >> 47 of the Disability Act. Learned counsel submitted that giving due >> regard > to >> >> the said provision the Ministry of Railways included the necessary > provision >> >> under Para 189-A and Para 231-A of the Indian Railway Establishment >> Manual > Vol. >> >> I (Revised Edition 1989). Para 189-A reads as under :- >> >> ?189A : Promotion of persons with disability >> >> >> >> There shall be no discrimination in the matter of promotion merely on the >> >> ground of physical disability. This will apply to categories of staff who > have >> >> been recruited from the open market against the vacancies reserved for >> >> recruitment of physically handicapped and the staff who acquire >> disability >> >> during service and are absorbed in suitable alternative employment as per >> >> provision contained in Ch. XIII. Such staff will be considered for > promotion in >> >> their turn based on their eligibility and suitability along with others >> in > the >> >> selection/ suitability/trade test for promotion to higher Grade post. >> >> >> >> Para 231-A is identically worded >> >> >> >> 8.He also submitted that Section 47 only mandated that there would not be > any >> >> discrimination in the matter of promotion and from this it would not > follow that >> >> such a person is to be given ?preferential treatment?. Learned counsel > also >> >> stated that a conscious policy decision was taken by the Railways keeping > in >> >> view the duties of COS and it was decided that no such reservation could > be >> >> given in the said post keeping in view the safety of the goods and > passengers. >> >> His submission was that even the DoPT was apprised of the aforesaid > decision and >> >> the logic behind the same and, therefore, it can be presumed that DoPT >> had > no >> >> objection to, or any dissensions on the Raiways decision to depart from > its >> >> policies. >> >> >> >> 9.Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the > reasoning >> >> adopted by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment. He also referred to the >> >> provisions of the Disability Act and emphasized that liberal > interpretation was >> >> to be given to the language of Sections 33 and 47 of the Disability Act >> in > order >> >> to ensure that it subserves the purpose for which these provisions were >> >> introduced in the said enactment. >> >> >> >> 10.We have given our utmost consideration to the submissions of counsel >> on > both >> >> sides. >> >> >> >> 11.In order to reach the root of the issue, it would be necessary to > understand >> >> the rational and reason for making provision for reservation in >> employment > for >> >> differently able persons under the Disability Act. >> >> >> >> 12.Our constitutional governance, as envisaged, respects basic human > rights and >> >> promotes human development in all situations wherein the dignity and the > worth >> >> of an individual lies at the core of a democratic value. The noble > objectives >> >> and rights enshrined in our Constitutional are to be materialized in > regard to >> >> the entire Indian Society which also includes Communities that had > remained >> >> disadvantaged and under developed due to various reasons and includes > people >> >> with disabilities. It is the aim of any civilized society to secure > dignity to >> >> every individual. There cannot be dignity without equality of status and >> >> opportunity. The absence of equal opportunities in any walk of social >> life > is a >> >> denial of equal status and equal participation in the affairs of the > society, >> >> and therefore, of its equal membership. The dignity of the individual is > dented >> >> and direct proportion to his deprivation of the equal access to social > means. >> >> The democratic foundations are missing when equal opportunity to grow, > govern >> >> and give one?s best to the society is denied to a sizable section of the >> >> society. The deprivation of the opportunities may be direct or indirect >> as > when >> >> the wherewithals to avail of them are denied. Nevertheless, the > consequences are >> >> as potent (See: Indira Sawhney v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477). >> >> >> >> 13.Let us understand the rights of disabled with aforesaid constitutional >> >> mandate in mind. Disability is a result both of the biological condition > of the >> >> individual and of the social status that attaches to that biological > condition. >> >> Till recently, persons with disabilities were depicted not as subjects of > legal >> >> rights but as objects of welfare, health and charity programs. The > underlying >> >> policy had been to segregate and exclude people with disabilities from >> >> mainstream society, sometimes providing them with special schools, > sheltered >> >> workshops, special housing and transportation. This policy was perceived > as just >> >> because disabled persons were believed incapable of coping with both > society at >> >> large and all or most major life activities. A Division Bench of this > Court in >> >> Social Jurist, A Lawyers Group v. UOI and Ors. 2002 VI AD (DELHI) 217 was > forced >> >> to pass the following comments: >> >> ?It is the common experience of several persons with disabilities that > they are >> >> unable to lead a full life due to societal barriers and discrimination > faced by >> >> them in employment, access to public spaces, transportation etc. Persons > with >> >> disability are most neglected lot not only in the society but also in the >> >> family. More often they are an object of pity. There are hardly any > meaningful >> >> attempts to assimilate them in the mainstream of the Nation's life. The > apathy >> >> towards their problems is so pervasive that even the number of disabled > persons >> >> existing in the country is not well documented. >> >> >> >> T.R.Dye, Policy Analyst, in his book `Understanding Public Policy' says: >> >> >> >> ``Conditions in society which are not defined as a problem and for which >> >> alternatives are never proposed, never become policy issues. Government > does >> >> nothing and conditions remain the same.'` >> >> >> >> This statement amply applies in the case of the disabled. At least this > was the >> >> position till few years ago. The condition of the disabled in the society > was >> >> not defined as a problem, and therefore, it did not become public issue. > It is >> >> not that this problem was not addressed. Various NGOs, Authors, Human > Rights >> >> Groups have been focusing on this problem from time to time and for quite >> >> sometime. But it was not defined as a problem which could become public > issue. >> >> Until the realisation dawned on the Government and the policy makers that > the >> >> right of the disabled was also a human right issue. >> >> >> >> xxx xxx xxx >> >> >> >> Various kinds of rights are recognised in this legislation which is on >> the >> >> Statute book for last about 6 years now but the question is as to whether > the >> >> Act is implemented in its true spirit and the rights conferred upon > disabled >> >> under this Act have been translated into reality?? Whether the disabled > are able >> >> to reap the fruits of this legislation?? The present case is a pointer to > the >> >> fact that all is still not well. >> >> >> >> Unless the mindset of the public changes; unless the attitude of the > persons and >> >> officials who are given the duty of implementation of? this? Act? >> changes, >> >> whatever? rights are granted to the disabled under? the Act, would remain > on >> >> paper.? >> >> 14. The subject of the rights of people with disabilities should be > approached >> >> from human rights perspective, which recognizes that persons with > disabilities >> >> are entitled to enjoy the full range of guaranteed rights and freedoms > without >> >> discrimination on the ground of disability. There should be a full > recognition >> >> of the fact that persons with disability are the integral part of the > community, >> >> equal in dignity and entitled to enjoy the same human rights and freedoms > as >> >> others. >> >> >> >> 15.With this objective in mind the Disability Act was enacted. The > Disability >> >> Act enacts a disability-equality law and does not limit itself to > prohibiting >> >> discrimination, but addresses a wide range of issues relating to persons > with >> >> disabilities. It is the legislative attempt to open up employment, > education, >> >> housing, and goods and services for persons regardless of their > disabilities in >> >> order to change the understanding of disability from a medical to a >> social >> >> category. >> >> >> >> 16.Therefore, providing employment to persons with disability is > absolutely >> >> essential. As, with unemployment, comes isolation and fewer opportunities > to >> >> participate in the life of a community or in recreational and social > activities. >> >> Thus, a human rights approach offers both the platform for such societal >> >> transformation and a way for disabled people to transform their sense of > who >> >> they are ? from stigmatised objects of care to valued subjects of their > own >> >> lives. For people who are poor and oppressed this is a key starting point > of any >> >> meaningful process of social and economic development. According to >> Gerard > Quinn >> >> and Theresia Degener (Human rights and disability: The current use and > future >> >> potential of United Nations human rights instruments in the context of >> >> disability. Geneva, Office of the High Commission for Human Rights. >> (2002) >> >> Available at, http://193.194.138.190/disability/study.htm, p.1.):- >> >> ?[T]he human rights perspective means viewing people with disabilities as >> >> subjects and not as objects. It entails moving away from viewing people > with >> >> disabilities as problems toward viewing them as rights holders. > Importantly, it >> >> >> >> means locating any problems outside the person and especially in the > manner by >> >> which various economic and social processes accommodate the difference of >> >> disability or not as the case may be. The debate about disability rights > is >> >> therefore connected to a larger debate about the place of difference in >> >> society.? >> >> >> >> 17.Introduction of provisions like Section 33 and Section 47 of the > Disability >> >> Act is to be seen with this objective in mind. >> >> 18.The conjoint reading of Sections 33 and 47 of the Disability Act >> giving > the >> >> interpretation which these provisions deserve, we are of the opinion that > the >> >> persons with disability would be entitled to reservation even in >> promotion > if >> >> the promotion is to Group C and D post. For the sake of convenience, we >> >> reproduce Sections 33 and 47(2) of the Disability Act, which are to the >> >> following effect :- >> >> ?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 >> >> be 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. >> >> >> >> xx xx xx >> >> >> >> 47. Non-discrimination in Government employment. - >> >> >> >> (1) xx xx xx >> >> >> >> (2) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his >> >> disability: >> >> >> >> Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type >> of > work >> >> carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such > conditions, >> >> if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any >> establishment > from >> >> the provisions of this section.? >> >> >> >> 19.We may also reproduce here the relevant OM dated 20.11.1989 of the > DoPT, >> >> which reads as under :- >> >> ?12. Reservation for the physically handicapped in Groups 'C' and 'D' >> >> posts filled by promotion. - It has been decided that when promotions are > being >> >> made (i) within Group 'D', (ii) from Group 'D' to Group 'C' and (iii) > within >> >> Group 'C', reservation will be provided for the three categories of the >> >> physically handicapped persons, namely, the visually handicapped, the > hearing >> >> handicapped and the orthopaedically handicapped. >> >> >> >> The applicability of the reservation will, however, be limited to the >> >> promotions being made to those posts that are identified as being capable > of >> >> being filled/held by the appropriate category of physically handicapped. >> >> >> >> 2. Each of the three categories of the physically handicapped persons >> will >> >> be allowed reservation at one per cent each. Though the reservations will > be >> >> effective only in those posts that are identified as being capable of > being held >> >> by the appropriate category of the physically handicapped persons, the > number of >> >> vacancies that will be reserved for the physically handicapped persons > when >> >> promotions are being made to such identified posts will be computed by > taking >> >> into account the total number of vacancies that arise for being filled by >> >> promotion in a recruitment year both in the non-identified as well as > identified >> >> posts. If the appropriate category of the physically handicapped persons > are >> >> not available in the feeder grade from which promotion is being made to > the next >> >> higher grade of the identified posts, then an inter se exchange will be >> >> permitted subject to the conditions that - >> >> >> >> (i) the post to which promotion is to be made is one that can be held by >> >> the category of the physically handicapped persons available in the >> feeder >> >> grade; and >> >> >> >> (ii) the reservation so exchanged is carried forward to the next three >> >> recruitment years after which the reservation shall lapse.? >> >> As per the aforesaid OM, reservation for physically handicapped in Group >> >> C and D posts, even when filled by promotion, is prescribed. >> >> >> >> 20.As noticed above, prior to the Disability Act coming into force, the >> >> Government had, by administrative instructions, provided reservation for >> >> physically handicapped persons in Group C and D posts. After the > Disability Act >> >> came into force, such a reservation is now permissible even for Group A > and B >> >> posts. This led the DoPT to issue OM dated 18.12.1997. Referring to > Section 33 >> >> of the Disability Act, this OM mentions that the reservation stands > extended to >> >> identified Group A and B posts filled through direct recruitment. In this > OM, >> >> however, it is stated that such reservation would be termed as horizontal >> >> reservation in contradistinction to the reservation of SC/ST candidates > where >> >> reservation is available at horizontal as well as vertical level with the >> >> principle of interlocking of vertical and horizontal reservations, as >> laid > down >> >> by the Supreme Court in the case of Indira Sawhney v. Union of India and > Ors., >> >> AIR 1993 SC 477. Though as per this OM for Group A and B posts the > reservation >> >> was only at induction level, significantly corrigendum was issued by the > DoPT >> >> vide OM dated 4.7.1997, which reads as under :- >> >> >> >> ?Subject: Reservation for the physically handicapped persons in Group A > and B >> >> Posts/Services under the Central Government. >> >> >> >> The undersigned is directed to invite attention to this department's O.M. > No. >> >> 36035/169/91-Estt.(SCT) dated 18.2.97 on the above subject and to say >> that > it >> >> has been represented before the Government that the earmarking of points > no. 33, >> >> 67 and 100 in the prescribed register for reservation for the physically >> >> handicapped would mean that the physically handicapped candidates may >> have > to >> >> wait for a long time to get their turn for promotion. The suggestion has > been >> >> considered and it has now been decided in partial modification of the >> O.M. > cited >> >> above that the point number of 34 and 67 in cycle of 100 vacancies in the > 100 >> >> point register and be marked for reservation for physically handicapped. > The >> >> other instructions contained in the aforesaid O.M. remains unchanged. >> >> >> >> Sd/- >> >> (Y.G. Parande) >> >> Director? >> >> >> >> 21.It is clear from the above that point No.34 and 67 in the cycle of 100 > are >> >> now earmarked for reservation for physically handicapped and, thus, > reservation >> >> is admissible even for Group A and B posts in promotion category and not > only at >> >> the induction level. We are of the opinion that this OM is brought in >> tune > with >> >> the letter and spirit behind Section 33 of the Disability Act. On >> >> interpretation of such a provision legal position is abundantly clear. > This is >> >> a benevolent measure introduced to ameliorate the sufferings of persons > who are >> >> physically disabled. Such a provision is to be given the widest possible >> >> interpretation. The objective is to achieve the purpose for which such a >> >> provision is introduced by the Parliament. The Apex Court in Kunal Singh > v. >> >> Union of India AIR 2003 SC 1623 held that: >> >> ``9. Chapter VI of the Act deals with employment relating to persons with >> >> disabilities, who are yet to secure employment. Section 47, which falls >> in >> >> Chapter VIII, deals with an employee, who is already in service and > acquires a >> >> disability during his service. It must be borne in mind that Section 2 of > the >> >> Act has given distinct and different definitions of ``disability'` and > ``person >> >> with disability'`. It is well settled that in the same enactment if two > distinct >> >> definitions are given defining a word/expression, they must be understood >> >> accordingly in terms of the definition. It must be remembered that a > person does >> >> not acquire or suffer disability by choice. An employee, who acquires > disability >> >> during his service, is sought to be protected under Section 47 of the Act >> >> specifically. Such employee, acquiring disability, if not protected, >> would > not >> >> only suffer himself, but possibly all those who depend on him would also > suffer. >> >> The very frame and contents of Section 47 clearly indicate its mandatory > nature. >> >> The very opening part of the section reads ``no establishment shall > dispense >> >> with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his >> >> service'`. The section further provides that if an employee after > acquiring >> >> disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted > to some >> >> other post with the same pay scale and service benefits; if it is not > possible >> >> to adjust the employee against any post he will be kept on a >> supernumerary > post >> >> until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of > superannuation, >> >> whichever is earlier. Added to this no promotion shall be denied to a > person >> >> merely on the ground of his disability as is evident from sub-section (2) > of >> >> Section 47. Section 47 contains a clear directive that the employer shall > not >> >> dispense with or reduce in rank an employee who acquires a disability > during the >> >> service. In construing a provision of a social beneficial enactment that > too >> >> dealing with disabled persons intended to give them equal opportunities, >> >> protection of rights and full participation, the view that advances the > object >> >> of the Act and serves its purpose must be preferred to the one which > obstructs >> >> the object and paralyses the purpose of the Act. Language of Section 47 >> is > plain >> >> and certain casting statutory obligation on the employer to protect an > employee >> >> acquiring disability during service.'` >> >> >> >> 22.This Court dealing with Section 33 of the Disability Act in All India >> >> Confederation of the Blind v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. 2005 (123) > DLT 244 >> >> clearly laid down that the Disability act is a benevolent legislation and > it has >> >> been repeatedly held that benevolent enactments ought to be given liberal > and >> >> expansive interpretation, and not narrow or restrictive construction (see > Madan >> >> Singh Shekhawat v. Union of India; 1996 (6) SCC 459; Deepal Girishbhai > Soni v. >> >> United India Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2004 SC 2107; Babu Parasakaikadi v. > Babu >> >> 2004 (1) SCC 681). >> >> >> >> 23.Where alternative constructions are possible the court must give >> effect > to >> >> that which will be responsible for the smooth working of the system for > which >> >> the statute has been enacted rather than the one which would put > hindrances in >> >> its way. >> >> >> >> 24.If the choice is between two interpretations, the narrower of which > would >> >> fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation we should avoid a >> >> construction which would reduce the legislation to futility and should > rather >> >> accept the bolder construction based on the view that Parliament would > legislate >> >> only for the purpose of bringing about an effective result. - Nokes v. > Doncaster >> >> Amalgamated Collieries Ltd (1940) A.C. 1014. Where alternative > constructions are >> >> equally open, that alternative is to be chosen which will be consistent > with the >> >> smooth working of the system which the statute purports to be regulating; > and >> >> that alternative is to be rejected which will introduce uncertainty, > fiction or >> >> confusion into the working of the system.- Shannon Realities Ltd v. Ville > de St >> >> Michel (1924) A.C. 185. [Maxwell pg. 45]. >> >> >> >> 25.It is well settled principle of law that as the statute is an edict of > the >> >> Legislature, the conventional way of interpreting or construing a statute > is to >> >> seek the intention of legislature. The intention of legislature > assimilates two >> >> aspects; one aspect carries the concept of ?meaning?, i.e., what the word > means >> >> and another aspect conveys the concept of ?purpose? and ?object? or the > ?reason? >> >> or ?spirit? pervading through the statute. The process of construction, >> >> therefore, combines both the literal and purposive approaches. However, >> >> necessity of interpretation would arise only where the language of a > statutory >> >> provision is ambiguous, not clear or where two views are possible or >> where > the >> >> provision gives a different meaning defeating the object of the statute. > If the >> >> language is clear and unambiguous, no need of interpretation would arise. > In >> >> this regard, a Constitution Bench of five Judges of the Supreme Court in > R.S. >> >> Nayak v A.R. Antulay, AIR 1984 SC 684 has held: >> >> ??If the words of the Statute are clear and unambiguous, it is the > plainest duty >> >> of the Court to give effect to the natural meaning of the words used in > the >> >> provision. The question of construction arises only in the event of an > ambiguity >> >> or the plain meaning of the words used in the Statute would be self > defeating.? >> >> (para 18) >> >> >> >> 26.In Grasim Industries Ltd. v Collector of Customs, Bombay, (2002) 4 SCC > 297 >> >> has followed the same principle and observed: >> >> 27.?Where the words are clear and there is no obscurity, and there is no >> >> ambiguity and the intention of the legislature is clearly conveyed, there > is no >> >> scope for court to take upon itself the task of amending or altering the >> >> statutory provisions.? (para 10) >> >> 28.Once this matter is seen from this perspective and we have to ensure > that >> >> persons suffering from disability also grow in stature and for this >> reason >> >> reservation is provided in the employment, limiting the same only at the >> >> induction level and not in the matter of promotions would be totally > unjust. >> >> Therefore, in view of the aforesaid provision, coupled with the > interpretation >> >> of the Government itself provided vide OM dated 20.11.1989 and >> corrigendum > dated >> >> 4.7.1997, reservation has to be provided in the matter of promotions as > well. >> >> 29.In this context we now examine as to whether persons like the > respondent >> >> could be deprived of the benefit on the basis of the purported policy > decision. >> >> >> >> 30.We feel that as per the petitioner's own argument, purported policy > decision >> >> is arbitrary and irrational and there is no justification from deviating > from >> >> the Government's policy contained in aforesaid OMs. The post of COS is a > Group >> >> C post and reservation to Group C post is provided as per the DoPT > circular and >> >> the Railways own policy. Therefore, in normal course there appears to be > no >> >> reason not to provide reservation for persons suffering with disability >> to > this >> >> post. The so-called policy decision of the petitioner, to ensure safe > carriage >> >> of goods and passengers, whereby the petitioner do not want to give > reservation >> >> for the said post to physically handicapped persons is not only unjust >> but >> >> aggravates the suffering of persons living/employed with disability. > Further, >> >> >> >> it is to be noted that the petitioner do not deny that a person suffering > from >> >> physical disability is entitled to promotion to this very post in normal > course. >> >> We fail to understand as to how when such physically handicapped person > gets >> >> promotion to the post of COS in the normal course would be able to > discharge the >> >> function of that post satisfactorily but would not be able to do so if he > is >> >> promoted to this post under the reservation quota. Ironically, this was > the >> >> argument of learned counsel for the petitioner before the Tribunal that >> in > the >> >> normal course, despite being handicap, the respondent herein was eligible > to be >> >> considered in the selection for promotion to Group C post of COS subject > to his >> >> qualification in the selection. If selection by promotion to such a post > under >> >> normal channel is available to a person like the respondent and his > handicapped- >> >> ness, in that eventuality, does not come in way of discharging his >> duties, > the >> >> reason for not providing reservation on this ground is contradictory in > terms >> >> and cannot be sustained. Such a justification for denying reservation is >> >> totally irrational and arbitrary. It, rather, depicts closed and narrow > minded >> >> approach of the petitioner, which is unsustainable in view of the > discussion >> >> above. >> >> >> >> 31.As a consequence of the aforesaid discussion, we uphold the judgment >> of > the >> >> Tribunal and dismiss these writ petitions with costs quantified at > Rs.10,000/- >> >> each. >> >> >> >> (A.K. SIKRI) >> >> JUDGE >> >> >> >> (VIPIN SANGHI) >> >> JUDGE >> >> December 07, 2007 >> >> nsk >> >> >> 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 > > > 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 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