Hi, I am trying to summarise the judgment from a lay person's perspective for my own understanding. The experts, kindly fill the gaps or correct me if I do goof ups. 1. The judgment dated 14th Jan 2020 is a reviewed petition on Civil appeal 1567 of 2017 which is based on PWD Act, 1995 "section 32 and 33 -reservation in promotion". 2. This judgment is for a very old case of 2008 Ravi Kumar Gupta versis Prasar Bharti as and he and few others were denied reservation in promotion in group A. However, Prasar Bharti considered them unfit due to their disability despite having chemical engineering background. 3. The case was reviewed after 8 years on 30th June 2016 and the judgment was given in 2017. 4. After that there were one or two more reviewed petitions in 2019 and finally, Civil Appeal No. 1567 of 2017 was reviewed dated 14th Jan 2020 in the form of latest judgment. 5. The gist of the judgment is that the judgment passed in 2017 will become applicable after the issueance of this reviewed petition. 6. Though, there was already reservation in promotion for groups C and D based on SC judgment dated 8th October 2013 but the salient feature of this particular judgment is that now there will be reservation in promotion for groups A and B. However, there are very few posts reserved for PWds in groups A and B thus, jobs roster making committee really needs to be conscious of being able to do justice with the policy of reservation in promotion.
On 1/21/20, Marisport A <marispor...@gmail.com> wrote: > i feel this judgment (14th January, 2020) could be the proper reference. > since, you are the first one to approach the government then, you ask > the ministry of social welfare along with Law to modify the promotion > policy in accordance with the judgment. > > > > On 1/21/20, Kasimani C <sangaman1...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Review Petition (C) No. 36 OF 2017 in Civil Appeal No. 5389 of 2016 >> judgement >> >> https://indiankanoon.org/doc/190245590/ >> >> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 12:11 PM Kasimani C <sangaman1...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Please say anybody : >>> >>> I am disabled person and working as Group C post in tamilnadu state >>> government, On Jan 2017 I gave letter to promotion attached with >>> Disability acts-2016, supreme court judgments and G.Os but they asking >>> reference to already got promotion by Disabled persons but i have no >>> reference. Please anybody have citation/reference/proofs above said >>> problem send me. >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 11:33 AM vishal sharma >>> <sharma1010vis...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> can anyone summarise the judgement ,please! >>>> >>>> On 1/21/20, Prasanna Kumar Pincha <prasannapin...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Sent from my iPhone >>>> > >>>> > Begin forwarded message: >>>> > >>>> >> From: Prasanna Pincha <prasannapin...@gmail.com> >>>> >> Date: 20 January 2020 at 2:29:02 PM GMT-5 >>>> >> To: "AccessIndia: a list for discussing accessibility and issues >>>> >> concerning the disabled." <accessindia@accessindia.org.in> >>>> >> Subject: Judgment on reservation in promotion >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Dear friends! >>>> >> >>>> >> Warm greetings from New York. >>>> >> >>>> >> I am pasting at the bottom of this letter recent supreme court >>>> judgment in >>>> >> word format dated 14th January, 2020 pronounced by the Hon’ble >>>> supreme >>>> >> court of India in Sidaraju Vs. the State of Karnataka which is >>>> >> self-explanatory. >>>> >> >>>> >> Kudos to the learned counsel Mr. Rajan Mani and also to the learned >>>> >> counsel of Mr. Sidaraju and to others, if any, who have played a >>>> genuine >>>> >> role in obtaining such a landmark judgment of the Hon’ble supreme >>>> court. >>>> >> >>>> >> You may recall in this context that I had mentioned about this >>>> >> judgment >>>> >> just two three days back in one of my posts on this list. >>>> >> >>>> >> With warm regards, >>>> >> >>>> >> Prasanna Kumar Pincha. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> REPORTABLE >>>> >> IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL >>>> >> APPEAL >>>> >> NO. 1567 OF 2017 >>>> >> >>>> >> Appellant(s) >>>> >> >>>> >> VERSUS >>>> >> >>>> >> STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. >>>> >> >>>> >> WITH >>>> >> >>>> >> REVIEW PETITION (C) NO. 36 OF 2017 >>>> >> IN >>>> >> CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5389 OF 2016 >>>> >> >>>> >> CIVIL APPEAL NO. 300 OF 2020 >>>> >> (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11632 of 2017) >>>> >> >>>> >> CIVIL APPEAL NO. 299 2020 >>>> >> (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21197 of 2017) >>>> >> >>>> >> CIVIL APPEAL NO. 310 2020 >>>> >> (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4650 of 2019) >>>> >> >>>> >> CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6092 OF 2019 >>>> >> >>>> >> CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6095 OF 2019 >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> J U D G M E N T >>>> >> "Delay condoned. Leave granted. >>>> >> Question which has arisen in this case is whether persons, governed >>>> under >>>> >> "The persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of >>>> Rights >>>> >> and Full Participation) Act, 1995", can be given reservation in >>>> promotion. >>>> >> A view has been taken by this Court in Rajiv Kumar Gupta & Others v. >>>> Union >>>> >> of India & Others - (2016) 6 SCALE 417 in the affirmative. >>>> >> >>>> >> Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General, points out that the >>>> >> prohibition against reservation in promotion laid down by the >>>> >> majority >>>> in >>>> >> Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India & Others - (1992) Supp. 3 >>>> >> SCC >>>> 215 >>>> >> applies not only to Article 16(4) but also 16(1) of the Constitution >>>> >> of >>>> >> India and inference to the contrary is not justified. >>>> >> >>>> >> Persons suffering from disability certainly require preferential >>>> treatment >>>> >> and such preferential treatment may also cover reservation in >>>> appointment >>>> >> but not reservation in promotion. Section 33 of the 1995 Act is >>>> required >>>> >> to be read and construed in that background. >>>> >> >>>> >> We find merit in the contention that the matter needs to be >>>> >> considered >>>> by >>>> >> the larger Bench. >>>> >> >>>> >> Accordingly, we direct the matter be placed before Hon'ble the Chief >>>> >> Justice for appropriate orders. >>>> >> >>>> >> Union of India is at liberty to file its affidavit within one week >>>> >> from >>>> >> today." >>>> >> >>>> >> 2) Parliament passed the Persons with Disabilities (Equal >>>> >> Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 >>>> >> being Act 1 of 1996. The statement of objects and reasons for the >>>> >> said >>>> Act >>>> >> states that a Conference held at Beijing, China, in December, 1992 >>>> >> had >>>> >> adopted the Proclamation on the Full Participation and Equality of >>>> People >>>> >> with Disabilities in the Asia and the Pacific region India being a >>>> >> signatory to the said proclamation found it >>>> >> necessary to enact a suitable legislation to provide for the special >>>> care >>>> >> that is necessary to remove discrimination against persons with >>>> >> disabilities and to make special provision for the integration of >>>> >> such >>>> >> persons into the social mainstream. >>>> >> 3) Section 2(i) of the said Act defines "disability" as >>>> >> follows:- >>>> >> >>>> >> "(i) "disability" means- >>>> >> >>>> >> (i) blindness; >>>> >> (ii) low vision; >>>> >> (iii) leprosy-cured; >>>> >> (iv) hearing impairment; >>>> >> (v) locomotor disability; >>>> >> (vi) mental retardation; >>>> >> (viii) mental illness;" >>>> >> >>>> >> Section 2(t) defines "person with disability" as follows:- >>>> >> >>>> >> "(t) "person with disability" means a person suffering from not less >>>> than >>>> >> forty per cent of any disability as certified by a medical >>>> >> authority;" >>>> >> 4) The Act then provides for Central and State Coordination >>>> >> Committees and prevention and early detection of disabilities. We are >>>> >> directly concerned with Chapter VI of the Act which deals with >>>> >> identification and reservation of posts for the purpose of >>>> >> employment. >>>> >> These Sections state as follows:- >>>> >> "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. >>>> >> >>>> >> 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." >>>> >> >>>> >> 5) In Union of India and Another vs. National Federation of the >>>> Blind >>>> >> and Others, (2013) 10 SCC 772, this Court went into the provisions of >>>> the >>>> >> aforesaid Act in some detail and, in particular, Sections 32 and 33. >>>> The >>>> >> Court considered Office Memorandum dated 29.12.2005 of the Government >>>> of >>>> >> India, which stated that the quantum of reservation would be as >>>> follows:- >>>> >> >>>> >> "2. QUANTUM OF RESERVATION >>>> >> >>>> >> (i) Three percent of the vacancies in case of direct recruitment >>>> >> to >>>> >> Group A, B, C and D posts shall be reserved for persons with >>>> disabilities >>>> >> of which one per cent each shall 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; >>>> >> >>>> >> (ii) Three percent of the vacancies in case of promotion to Group >>>> >> D, >>>> >> and Group C posts in which the element of direct recruitment, if any, >>>> does >>>> >> not exceed 75%, shall be reserved for persons with disabilities of >>>> which >>>> >> one per cent each shall 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. >>>> >> >>>> >> The Court then held as follows: >>>> >> >>>> >> "39) It has also been submitted on behalf of the appellants herein >>>> >> that >>>> >> since reservation of persons with disabilities in Group C and D has >>>> been >>>> >> in force prior to the enactment and is being made against the total >>>> number >>>> >> of vacancies in the cadre strength according to the OM dated >>>> >> 29.12.2005 but the actual import of Section 33 is that it has to >>>> >> be >>>> >> computed against identified posts only. This argument is also >>>> completely >>>> >> misconceived in view of the plain language of the said Section, as >>>> >> deliberated above. Even for the sake of argument, if we accept that >>>> >> the >>>> >> computation of reservation in respect of Group C and D posts is >>>> >> against >>>> >> the total vacancies in the cadre strength because of the >>>> >> applicability >>>> of >>>> >> the scheme of reservation in Group C and D posts prior to enactment, >>>> >> Section 33 does not distinguish the manner of computation of >>>> reservation >>>> >> between Group A and B posts or Group C and D posts respectively. As >>>> such, >>>> >> one statutory provision cannot be interpreted and applied differently >>>> for >>>> >> the same subject-matter. >>>> >> >>>> >> 40) Further, if we accept the interpretation contended by the >>>> appellants >>>> >> that computation of reservation has to be against the identified >>>> >> posts >>>> >> only, it would result into uncertainty of the application of the >>>> scheme of >>>> >> reservation because experience has shown that identification has >>>> >> never >>>> >> been uniform between the Centre and the States and even between the >>>> >> Departments of any Government. For example, while a post of middle >>>> school >>>> >> teacher has been notified as identified as suitable for the blind and >>>> low >>>> >> vision by the Central Government, it has not been identified as >>>> suitable >>>> >> for the blind and low vision in some States such as Gujarat and J&K, >>>> etc. >>>> >> This has led to a series of litigations which have been pending in >>>> various >>>> >> High Courts. In addition, Para 4 of the OM dated >>>> >> 29.12.2005 dealing with the issue of >>>> >> identification of jobs/posts in sub clause (b) states that list of >>>> >> the >>>> >> jobs/posts notified by the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment >>>> >> is >>>> not >>>> >> exhaustive which further makes the computation of reservation >>>> >> uncertain >>>> >> and arbitrary in the event of acceptance of the contention raised by >>>> the >>>> >> appellants. >>>> >> >>>> >> 42) A perusal of Indra Sawhney would reveal that the ceiling of 50% >>>> >> reservation applies only to reservation in favour of other Backward >>>> >> classes under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India whereas the >>>> >> reservation in favour of persons with disabilities is horizontal, >>>> which is >>>> >> under Article 16(1) of the Constitution. In fact, this Court in the >>>> said >>>> >> pronouncement has used the example of 3% reservation in favour of >>>> persons >>>> >> with disabilities while dealing with the rule of 50% ceiling. Para >>>> >> 812 >>>> of >>>> >> the judgment clearly brings out that after selection and appointment >>>> >> of >>>> >> candidates under reservation for persons with disabilities they will >>>> >> be >>>> >> placed in the respective rosters of reserved category or open >>>> >> category >>>> >> respectively on the basis of the category to which they belong and, >>>> thus, >>>> >> the reservation for persons with disabilities per se has nothing to >>>> >> do >>>> >> with the ceiling of 50%. Para 812 is reproduced as follows:- >>>> >> >>>> >> "812............. all reservations are not of the same >>>> >> nature. There are two types of reservations, which may, for the sake >>>> >> of >>>> >> convenience, be referred to as 'vertical reservations' and >>>> >> 'horizontal >>>> >> reservations'. The reservations in favour of Scheduled Castes, the >>>> >> Scheduled Tribes and the other backward classes [under Article 16(4)] >>>> may >>>> >> be called vertical reservations whereas reservations in favour of >>>> >> physically handicapped [under Clause (1) of Article 16] can be >>>> referred to >>>> >> as horizontal reservations. Horizontal reservations cut across the >>>> >> vertical reservations - what is called inter-locking reservations. To >>>> be >>>> >> more precise, suppose 3% of the vacancies are reserved in favour of >>>> >> physically handicapped persons; this would be a reservation relatable >>>> to >>>> >> Clause (1) of Article 16. The persons selected against this quota >>>> >> will >>>> be >>>> >> placed in the appropriate category; if he belongs to S.C. category he >>>> will >>>> >> be placed in that quota by making necessary adjustments; similarly, >>>> >> if >>>> he >>>> >> belongs to open competition (O.C.) category, he will be placed in >>>> >> that >>>> >> category by making necessary >>>> >> adjustments. Even after >>>> providing >>>> >> for these >>>> >> horizontal reservations, the >>>> >> percentage of >>>> >> reservations in favour of backward class of citizens remains - and >>>> should >>>> >> remain - the same " >>>> >> >>>> >> Having concluded thus, the Court then held: >>>> >> >>>> >> "50) 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. >>>> >> >>>> >> 51) The Union of India, the State Governments as well as the Union >>>> >> Territories have a categorical obligation under the Constitution of >>>> India >>>> >> and under various International treaties relating to human rights in >>>> >> general and treaties for disabled persons in particular, to protect >>>> >> the >>>> >> rights of disabled persons. Even though the Act was enacted way back >>>> >> in >>>> >> 1995, the disabled people have failed to get required benefit until >>>> today. >>>> >> >>>> >> 52) Thus, after thoughtful consideration, we are >>>> >> of the view that the computation of reservation for persons with >>>> >> disabilities has to be computed in case of Group A, B, C and D posts >>>> in an >>>> >> identical manner viz., "computing 3% reservation on total number of >>>> >> vacancies in the cadre strength" which is the intention of the >>>> >> legislature. Accordingly, certain clauses in the OM dated 29.12.2005, >>>> >> which are contrary to the above reasoning are struck down and we >>>> >> direct >>>> >> the appropriate Government to issue new Office >>>> >> Memorandum(s) consistent with the decision rendered by this Court. >>>> >> >>>> >> 53) Further, the reservation for persons with disabilities has >>>> nothing >>>> >> to do with the ceiling of 50% and hence, Indra Sawhney is not >>>> applicable >>>> >> with respect to the disabled persons." >>>> >> >>>> >> 6) Certain directions were then made in the end of the >>>> >> >>>> >> judgment to ensure proper implementation of the reservation >>>> >> policy for the disabled and to protect their rights. >>>> >> 7) We may mention that, pursuant to this Court's judgment, >>>> >> the Union of India issued Office Memorandum dated 03.12.2013 >>>> >> in which it made only one change in the Office Memorandum >>>> >> dated 29.12.2015 as follows:- >>>> >> "5. Keeping in view the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Para >>>> 14 >>>> >> of the OM dated 29.12.2005 is modified to the following extent: >>>> >> >>>> >> "Reservation for persons with disabilities in Group 'A' or Group 'B' >>>> posts >>>> >> shall be computed on the basis of total number of vacancies occurring >>>> in >>>> >> direct recruitment quota in all the Group 'A' posts or Group 'B' >>>> >> posts >>>> >> respectively, in the cadre." >>>> >> >>>> >> Contempt petitions were filed stating that the directions contained >>>> >> in >>>> >> this judgment have not been carried out, which is not the >>>> subject-matter >>>> >> before us. These petitions have been ordered to be listed after the >>>> >> decision in these cases. >>>> >> 8) The next important judgment that needs to be adverted >>>> >> to in this behalf is the judgment in National Federation of >>>> >> the Blind vs. Sanjay_Kothari,_Secy._Deptt._of_Persgnnel_and_ >>>> >> Training, 2015 (9) Scale 611, in para 10 of which para 51 of >>>> >> the earlier judgment was clarified as follows:- >>>> >> "10. Para 51 of the order on which reliance has been placed by Shri >>>> Rungta >>>> >> must be viewed in the context of the questions arising for answer >>>> before >>>> >> the Court i.e. the manner of computation of vacancies in case of >>>> Groups A, >>>> >> B, C and D posts. >>>> >> All that the Court in the aforesaid paragraph 51 has held is that the >>>> >> manner of such identification must be uniform in the case of all the >>>> >> groups viz. >>>> >> A, B, C and D. Nothing beyond the above should be read in paragraph >>>> >> 51 >>>> of >>>> >> the Courts' order as aforesaid." >>>> >> 9) We now come to the Division Bench judgment of this Court >>>> reported >>>> >> as Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Others v. Union of India & Others - (2016) 13 >>>> SCC >>>> >> 153. In this judgment, the posts in Prasar Bharati were classified >>>> >> into >>>> >> four Groups-A to D. The precise question that arose before the Court >>>> >> is >>>> >> set out in para 5 thereof in which it is stated that the statutory >>>> benefit >>>> >> of 3 per cent reservation in favour of those who are disabled is >>>> >> denied >>>> >> insofar as identified posts in Groups A and B are concerned, since >>>> these >>>> >> posts are to be filled through direct recruitment. After noticing the >>>> >> arguments based on the nine-Judge bench in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of >>>> >> India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, this Court held: >>>> >> >>>> >> "14. We now examine the applicability of the prohibition on >>>> reservation in >>>> >> promotions as propounded by Indra Sawhney. Prior to Indra Sawhney, >>>> >> reservation in promotions were permitted under law as interpreted by >>>> this >>>> >> Court in Southern Railway v. Rangachari, AIR 1962 SC 36. Indra >>>> >> Sawhney >>>> >> specifically overruled Rangachari to the extent that reservations in >>>> >> promotions were held in Rangachari to be permitted under Article >>>> >> 16(4) >>>> of >>>> >> the Constitution. Indra Sawhney specifically addressed the question >>>> >> whether reservations could be permitted in matters of promotion under >>>> >> Article 16(4). The majority held that reservations in promotion are >>>> >> not >>>> >> permitted under our constitutional scheme. >>>> >> >>>> >> 15. The respondent argued that the answer to Que- tion 7 in Indra >>>> >> Sawhney squarely covers the situation on hand and the reasons >>>> >> outlined >>>> by >>>> >> the majority opinion in Indra Sawhney at para 828 must also apply to >>>> bar >>>> >> reservation in promotions to identified posts of Group A and Group B. >>>> >> >>>> >> 16. We do not agree with the respondent's submission. Indra >>>> >> Sawhney >>>> >> ruling arose in the context of reservations in favour of backward >>>> >> classes of citizens falling within the sweep of Article 16(4). >>>> >> >>>> >> xxx xxx >>>> >> >>>> >> 21. 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. However, for >>>> >> creating such preferential treatment under law, consistent with the >>>> >> mandate of Article 16(1), the State cannot choose any one of the >>>> factors >>>> >> such as caste, religion, etc. mentioned in Article 16(1) as the >>>> >> basis. >>>> The >>>> >> basis for providing reservation for PWD is physical disability and >>>> >> not >>>> any >>>> >> of the criteria forbidden under Article 16(1). Therefore, the rule of >>>> no >>>> >> reservation in promotions as laid down in Indra Sawhney has clearly >>>> >> and >>>> >> normatively no application to PWD. >>>> >> >>>> >> The Court then concluded: >>>> >> >>>> >> 24. A combined reading of Sections 32 and 33 of >>>> >> the 1995 Act explicates a fine and designed balance between >>>> requirements >>>> >> of administration and the imperative to provide greater opportunities >>>> to >>>> >> PWD. Therefore, as detailed in the first part of our analysis, the >>>> >> identification exercise under Section 32 is crucial. 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. >>>> >> >>>> >> 25. In light of the preceding analysis, we declare the impugned >>>> >> memoranda as illegal and inconsistent with the 1995 Act. We further >>>> direct >>>> >> the Government to extend three percent reservation to PWD in all >>>> >> identified posts in Group A and Group B, irrespective of the mode of >>>> >> filling up of such posts. This writ petition is accordingly allowed." >>>> >> 10) After hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the >>>> >> parties including the learned Additional Solicitor General, we are of >>>> the >>>> >> view that the judgment of this Court cannot be faulted when it stated >>>> that >>>> >> Indra Sawhney dealt with a different problem and, therefore, cannot >>>> >> be >>>> >> followed. >>>> >> >>>> >> 11) We may also note that >>>> >> review >>>> >> petitions were filed and >>>> >> have since been dismissed >>>> >> against both the 2013 and 2016 >>>> >> judgments. Consequently, the reference stands answered by stating >>>> >> that >>>> the >>>> >> 2013 judgment as clarified in National Federation of the Blind vs. >>>> Sanjay >>>> >> Kothari, Secy. Deptt. of Personnel and Training, 2015 (9) Scale 611 >>>> >> and >>>> >> the judgment in Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Others v. Union of India & >>>> >> Others >>>> - >>>> >> (2016) 13 SCC 153 case will bind the Union and the State Governments >>>> and >>>> >> must be strictly followed notwithstanding the Office Memorandum dated >>>> >> 29.12.2005, in particular. Since the >>>> >> reference has been disposed of by us today, >>>> >> contempt petitions be listed for hearing. >>>> >> Civil Appeal No. 1567 OF 2017: >>>> >> 12) Application for impleadment >>>> >> in C.A. 1567/2017 is >>>> >> allowed. >>>> >> 13) This matter arises out of the order of the Central >>>> Administrative >>>> >> Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore dated 24.07.2015 in which the >>>> >> 2005 >>>> >> O.M has been followed without reference to any of the judgments of >>>> >> this >>>> >> Court. A writ petition from the aforesaid judgment was dismissed by >>>> >> the >>>> >> Karnataka High Court on 23.03.2016, stating that the precise >>>> >> question of law that arises in this case was kept open. Accordingly, >>>> >> we >>>> >> set aside the judgment of the CAT and consequently that of the High >>>> Court. >>>> >> The case is to be governed by the three decisions of this Court >>>> outlined >>>> >> above, which judgments have to be followed by the Union of India and >>>> the >>>> >> States. It is not necessary to pass any further directions. The >>>> >> appeal >>>> is >>>> >> disposed of accordingly. >>>> >> >>>> >> Review Petition (C) No. 36 OF 2017 in Civil Appeal No. 5389 of 2016: >>>> >> 14) Delay is condoned. >>>> >> 15) This matter stands dismissed in view of today's judgment. >>>> >> >>>> >> SLP (C) No. 11632 of 2017: >>>> >> 16) Leave granted. >>>> >> 17) The impugned judgment of the High Court dated >>>> >> 22.06.2016 in this appeal, after referring to the judgment >>>> >> of this Court in National Federation of the Blind vs. >>>> >> Sanjay Kothari, Secy. Deptt. of Personnel and Training, 2015 >>>> >> (9) Scale 611 arrived at the following conclusion: >>>> >> "8. The contention of the learned Attorney General was that except >>>> >> for >>>> >> sub-section 2 of Section 47, there was no other provision under the >>>> >> Disabilities Act dealing with the promotions and, therefore, on the >>>> >> strength of sub-section 2 of Section 47 of the Disabilities Act, it >>>> cannot >>>> >> be contended that the Act provides for reservation in the matter of >>>> >> promotion. In paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment and order dated 1st >>>> >> September, >>>> >> 2015, the Apex Court has dealt with issue of reservation in >>>> >> promotion. >>>> In >>>> >> paragraph 10 of the judgment and order dated 1st September, >>>> >> 2015, the Apex Court has explained paragraph 51 of the earlier >>>> >> judgment >>>> >> and order dated 8th October, 2013 by observing that what is observed >>>> >> in >>>> >> paragraph 51 is about the manner of computation of vacancies in case >>>> >> of >>>> >> all the Groups viz. A, B, C and D posts. That is the reason why the >>>> Apex >>>> >> Court declined to initiate any action for contempt on the basis of >>>> >> allegations that there is no provision made for the reservation of >>>> persons >>>> >> with disabilities in promotion. In terms the Apex Court observed that >>>> what >>>> >> is held in paragraph 51 of the judgment and order dated 8th October, >>>> 2013 >>>> >> cannot be construed to mean that there is a direction issued to >>>> >> provide >>>> >> for the reservation for the persons with disabilities even in the >>>> >> promotional posts. >>>> >> >>>> >> 9. In view of the clarification issued by the Apex Court under the >>>> order >>>> >> dated 1st September, 2015 in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 499 of >>>> >> 2014, >>>> >> now the directions contained in paragraph 13 of the judgment and >>>> >> order >>>> >> dated 4th December, 2013 cannot be implemented insofar as the same >>>> >> deal >>>> >> with giving benefit of reservation to the persons with disabilities >>>> >> in >>>> the >>>> >> matter of promotion to the posts in the Indian Administrative Service >>>> by >>>> >> applying the Office Memorandum dated 29th December, 2005." >>>> >> Consequently, the High Court held that no action can be initiated in >>>> the >>>> >> contempt petition on the ground that reservation had not been >>>> >> provided >>>> in >>>> >> the matter of promotion. We may hasten to add that this is not a >>>> correct >>>> >> reading of the law laid down by this Court. National Federation of >>>> >> the >>>> >> Blind vs. Sanjay Kothari, Secy. Deptt. of Personnel and Training, >>>> >> 2015 >>>> (9) >>>> >> Scale 611 was a judgment in a contempt petition in which the >>>> >> contention >>>> >> taken up by the petitioner was repelled by stating that para 51 of >>>> >> the >>>> >> 2013 judgment has held that the manner of identification of posts of >>>> all >>>> >> groups must be uniform and nothing beyond. After the >>>> >> declaration of the law in Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Others v. Union of >>>> India & >>>> >> Others - (2016) 13 SCC 153 it is now clear beyond doubt that the O.M. >>>> of >>>> >> 2005 cannot be given effect to when it is in the teeth of the 2016 >>>> >> judgment. On the basis of this judgment, the impugned judgment is set >>>> >> aside and the contempt petition is restored to the file. The petition >>>> be >>>> >> disposed of on merits.The appeal is disposed of accordingly. >>>> >> >>>> >> SLP (C) No. 21197 of 2017: >>>> >> 18) Leave granted. >>>> >> 19) In view of our judgment today, the appeal is dismissed. >>>> >> >>>> >> SLP (C) No. 4650 of 2019: >>>> >> 20) Leave granted. >>>> >> 21) Having heard learned senior counsel for the appellant >>>> >> at some length, we may note that paragraph 4(C) of the >>>> >> counter affidavit states as follows: >>>> >> "(C) That Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Ltd. has appointed >>>> >> a >>>> >> committee for identification of the post upon which reservation in >>>> >> promotion will be applicable. The said Committee in its meeting held >>>> >> on >>>> >> 10.01.2017 decided that the post of Executive Engineer, Mechanical >>>> >> and >>>> >> Electrical in transmission, distribution and generation companies >>>> >> where >>>> >> the Executive Engineer has to visit sites and perform various acts >>>> >> personally, it is not advisable to keep such post under reservation. >>>> >> However, reservation will be applicable in promotion to the post of >>>> >> Executive Engineer, Computer Science, Information & Technology and >>>> Civil >>>> >> Engineering. The said decision of the company has not been challenged >>>> till >>>> >> date and thus binding on all the employees as per the provisions of >>>> Rights >>>> >> of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. On this ground also the >>>> >> Special >>>> >> Leave Petition filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable." >>>> >> 22) It is clear that the Internal Committee of respondent No. 2 >>>> >> has >>>> >> applied its mind to the post of Executive Engineer, Mechanical and >>>> >> Electrical, and has opined that in the said post, reservation for the >>>> >> physically disabled will not be possible for the reason given >>>> >> therein. >>>> >> 23) >>>> >> Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant >>>> has >>>> >> pointed out that as per the Gazette Notification dated 31.05.2001, it >>>> is >>>> >> an Expert Committee that has to identify, keeping in view the >>>> provisions >>>> >> of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of >>>> >> Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, and Section 32 in >>>> >> particular, >>>> >> suitable posts for persons with >>>> >> disabilities, and this has not been done in the present case. Since >>>> this >>>> >> point has not been argued in any of the cross appeals, we reserve >>>> liberty >>>> >> to the appellant to challenge the Internal Committee's findings on >>>> grounds >>>> >> available to them in law. Apart from this, the impugned judgment does >>>> not >>>> >> call for interference. The appeal is >>>> >> disposed of accordingly. >>>> >> 24) Needless to add if such a challenge succeeds, the three >>>> judgments >>>> >> pointed out by us in the Judgment in the lead matter, i.e., Civil >>>> Appeal >>>> >> No. 1567 of 2017 will have to be applied and followed. >>>> >> >>>> >> Civil Appeal No. 6092 of 2019: >>>> >> 25) The appeal is dismissed in accordance with today's judgment. >>>> >> Interim order dated 08.07.2019 stands vacated. >>>> >> It has been contended before us that there are only 2 Group 'A' posts >>>> >> available/identified as a result of which the reservation will have >>>> >> to >>>> be >>>> >> worked in accordance with the roster system. We may only clarify that >>>> we >>>> >> have not, in any manner, indicated as to how such system should be >>>> worked. >>>> >> >>>> >> Civil Appeal No. 6095 of 2019: >>>> >> >>>> >> 26) The appeal is dismissed in view of today's judgment. >>>> >> >>>> >> ............................................................ J. >>>> >> (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN) >>>> >> >>>> >> J. >>>> >> (ANIRUDDHA BOSE) >>>> >> >>>> >> J. >>>> >> (V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN) >>>> >> >>>> >> New Delhi; >>>> >> January 14-15, 2020. >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Search for old postings at: >>>> > http://www.mail-archive.com/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ >>>> > >>>> > To unsubscribe send a message to >>>> > accessindia-requ...@accessindia.org.in >>>> > 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 >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Disclaimer: >>>> > 1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the thinking >>>> of the >>>> > person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself to its >>>> > veracity; >>>> > >>>> > 2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission based on the >>>> mails >>>> > sent through this mailing list.. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Search for old postings at: >>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ >>>> >>>> To unsubscribe send a message to >>>> accessindia-requ...@accessindia.org.in >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> Disclaimer: >>>> 1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the thinking of >>>> the person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself to its >>>> veracity; >>>> >>>> 2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission based on the >>>> mails sent through this mailing list.. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> * ___* >>> *C.Kasimani* M.A., M.L.I.S., M.Phil., Ph.D, PGDCA., NET., SET >>> Librarian and Information Asst, >>> Anna Centenary Library, >>> Gandhimandabam Road, >>> Kotturpuram, >>> Chennai-600085. >>> >> >> >> -- >> * ___* >> *C.Kasimani* M.A., M.L.I.S., M.Phil., Ph.D, PGDCA., NET., SET >> Librarian and Information Asst, >> Anna Centenary Library, >> Gandhimandabam Road, >> Kotturpuram, >> Chennai-600085. >> >> >> >> Search for old postings at: >> http://www.mail-archive.com/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ >> >> To unsubscribe send a message to >> accessindia-requ...@accessindia.org.in >> 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 >> >> >> Disclaimer: >> 1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the thinking of >> the >> person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself to its veracity; >> >> 2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission based on the mails >> sent through this mailing list.. >> >> > > > > > Search for old postings at: > http://www.mail-archive.com/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ > > To unsubscribe send a message to > accessindia-requ...@accessindia.org.in > 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 > > > Disclaimer: > 1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the thinking of the > person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself to its veracity; > > 2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission based on the mails > sent through this mailing list.. > > -- Let's be in peace but not into pieces Search for old postings at: http://www.mail-archive.com/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ To unsubscribe send a message to accessindia-requ...@accessindia.org.in 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 Disclaimer: 1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the thinking of the person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself to its veracity; 2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission based on the mails sent through this mailing list..
