Re: [AI] Fwd: Judgment on reservation in promotion
What would you say on this? No fundamental right to claim reservation, State not bound to provide reservation in promotion: SC New Delhi, list of 2 items Feb 07 2020, 19:11pm ist updated: Feb 07 2020, 21:09pm ist list end Reuters file photo Reuters file photo Highlights: Article 16 (4) and (4-A) (reservation in promotion) is clear which mean inadequacy of representation is a matter within subjective satisfaction of State State can form its own opinion on the basis of material through a Commission or Committee, person or authority The data to be collected is only to justify reservation in appointment or promotion to public posts Data collection on inadequate representation of SC/STs is a pre requisite and is not required when the state government decided not to provide reservations In a significant judgement, the Supreme Court on Friday said an individual cannot claim reservation as a fundamental right and the government is not bound to provide quota in promotion for the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe employees in public jobs. A bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta said Articles 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) of the Constitution empowered the State to make reservation in matters of appointment and promotion in favour of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes “if in its opinion, they are not adequately represented in the services”. The top court said it was for the state government to decide whether reservations were required in the matter of appointment and promotions to public posts. “In view of the law laid down by this court, there is no doubt that the state government is not bound to make reservations. There is no fundamental right which inheres in an individual to claim reservation in promotions. No mandamus can be issued by the court directing the state government to provide reservations,” the bench held. The top court relied upon the Constitution bench judgements in Indra Sawhney (1992), M Nagaraj (2006) and Jarnail Singh (2018) and Suresh Chand Gautam (2016) cases, among others, to set aside the Uttarakhand HC's directions issued on July 15, 2019 to the state government to implement reservations in promotion. The HC's direction for filling up all future vacancies in post of Assistant Engineers in PWD from the members of SC/STs was “wholly unjustifiable”, it said. The bench found the HC's direction to collect quantifiable data was “wholly unnecessary”, since the state government took a conscious decision not to provide reservation in promotions. The court said since the State was not bound to provide reservations in promotions, it was not required to justify its decision on the basis of quantifiable data, showing adequate representation of members of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes in its services. “Even if the under-representation of Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes in public services is brought to the notice of this court, no mandamus can be issued to the state government to provide reservation,” it said. https://www.deccanherald.com/national/sedition-charges-being-distributed-freely-like-prasad-says-kanhaiya-kumar-802661.html On 1/28/20, Padmanabam Muppa wrote: > Can any one provide the same judgement in PDF > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 21-Jan-2020, at 11:37 AM, vishal sharma >> wrote: >> >> can anyone summarise the judgement ,please! >> >>> On 1/21/20, Prasanna Kumar Pincha wrote: >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> From: Prasanna Pincha Date: 20 January 2020 at 2:29:02 PM GMT-5 To: "AccessIndia: a list for discussing accessibility and issues concerning the disabled." 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 (Aris
Re: [AI] Fwd: Judgment on reservation in promotion
Can any one provide the same judgement in PDF Sent from my iPhone > On 21-Jan-2020, at 11:37 AM, vishal sharma wrote: > > can anyone summarise the judgement ,please! > >> On 1/21/20, Prasanna Kumar Pincha wrote: >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> From: Prasanna Pincha >>> Date: 20 January 2020 at 2:29:02 PM GMT-5 >>> To: "AccessIndia: a list for discussing accessibility and issues >>> concerning the disabled." >>> 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 >>> dis
Re: [AI] Fwd: Judgment on reservation in promotion
I think that this judgment came on review petition. Still parties can not be debarred to obtain legal remedy. In court cases, mostly review/appeals are filed by the parties in last 2 or 3 days before expiry of limitation. -Original Message- From: sazid shaik Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 11:23 AM To: AccessIndia: a list for discussing accessibility and issues concerning the disabled. Subject: Re: [AI] Fwd: Judgment on reservation in promotion Did govt of india asked for any review petition or went for any appeal on the judgement? thanks and regards, sazid On 1/24/20, Rajesh Hardayaldas Asudani wrote: Yes, after DoPT issues necessary Office memorandum and Ministry of finance forwards it for compliance. सादर / With thanks & Regards राजेश आसुदानी Rajesh Asudani सहायक महाप्रबन्धक AGM बाजार आसूचना ईकाई MIU भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक Reserve Bank of India नागपुर Nagpur 0712 2806846 President VIBEWA Co-Moderator VIB-India President DARE-Disability Advocacy, Research and Education A-pilll = Action coupled with Positivity, Interest, Love, Logic and laughter -Original Message- From: AccessIndia [mailto:accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in] On Behalf Of ?? Akash Gupta Sent: 23 January 2020 20:00 To: AccessIndia: a list for discussing accessibility and issues concerning the disabled. Subject: Re: [AI] Fwd: Judgment on reservation in promotion Will this order will applicable on all government banks? On 21/01/2020, bhawani shankar verma wrote: yes, it is clearcut order in judgment that DOPT have to issue fresh OM in the context of this judgment. - Original Message - From: "vivek doddamani" To: "AccessIndia: a list for discussing accessibility and issues concerning the disabled." Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 3:51 PM Subject: Re: [AI] Fwd: Judgment on reservation in promotion Regarding this jJudgement I had discussion in administration branch of my Office there they said promotion cannot be given on Supreme court judgement, department of personnal & training DOPT of Government of India should endorsement of this judgement then only it can be possible for implement of this judgement. On 1/21/20, Binni Kumari wrote: 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 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 wrote: Review Petition (C) No. 36 OF 2017 in Civil Appeal No. 5389 of 2016 judgement https://indiankanoon.noclick_org/doc/190245590/ On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 12:11 PM Kasimani C 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 wrote: can anyone summarise the judgement ,please! On 1/21/20, Prasanna Kumar Pincha wrote: > > > Sent from my iPhone > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Prasanna Pincha >> Date: 20 January 2020 at 2:29:02 PM GMT-5 >> To: "AccessIndia: a list for discussing accessibility and >> issues conc
Re: [AI] Fwd: Judgment on reservation in promotion
It had already done so for earlier judgments, and so larger bench reference was required. Now, it cannot, unless it opines that some constitutional point is at stake and SC agrees with such a view. Then the constitutional bench of minimum five judges will have to be constituted. सादर / With thanks & Regards राजेश आसुदानी Rajesh Asudani सहायक महाप्रबन्धक AGM बाजार आसूचना ईकाई MIU भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक Reserve Bank of India नागपुर Nagpur 0712 2806846 President VIBEWA Co-Moderator VIB-India President DARE-Disability Advocacy, Research and Education A-pilll = Action coupled with Positivity, Interest, Love, Logic and laughter -Original Message- From: AccessIndia [mailto:accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in] On Behalf Of sazid shaik Sent: 27 January 2020 11:24 To: AccessIndia: a list for discussing accessibility and issues concerning the disabled. Subject: Re: [AI] Fwd: Judgment on reservation in promotion Did govt of india asked for any review petition or went for any appeal on the judgement? thanks and regards, sazid On 1/24/20, Rajesh Hardayaldas Asudani wrote: > Yes, after DoPT issues necessary Office memorandum and Ministry of finance > forwards it for compliance. > > > सादर / With thanks & Regards > राजेश आसुदानी Rajesh Asudani > सहायक महाप्रबन्धक AGM > बाजार आसूचना ईकाई MIU > भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक Reserve Bank of India > नागपुर Nagpur > > 0712 2806846 > > President > VIBEWA > Co-Moderator > VIB-India > President > DARE-Disability Advocacy, Research and Education > A-pilll = Action coupled with Positivity, Interest, Love, Logic and > laughter > > -Original Message- > From: AccessIndia [mailto:accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in] On Behalf > Of ?? Akash Gupta > Sent: 23 January 2020 20:00 > To: AccessIndia: a list for discussing accessibility and issues concerning > the disabled. > Subject: Re: [AI] Fwd: Judgment on reservation in promotion > > Will this order will applicable on all government banks? > > On 21/01/2020, bhawani shankar verma wrote: >> yes, it is clearcut order in judgment that DOPT have to issue fresh OM >> in the context of this judgment. >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "vivek doddamani" >> To: "AccessIndia: a list for discussing accessibility and issues >> concerning the disabled." >> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 3:51 PM >> Subject: Re: [AI] Fwd: Judgment on reservation in promotion >> >> >>> Regarding this jJudgement I had discussion in administration branch >>> of my Office there they said promotion cannot be given on Supreme >>> court judgement, department of personnal & training DOPT of >>> Government of India should endorsement of this judgement then only it >>> can be possible for implement of this judgement. >>> >>> On 1/21/20, Binni Kumari wrote: >>>> 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. >>>> >&g
Re: [AI] Fwd: Judgment on reservation in promotion
Did govt of india asked for any review petition or went for any appeal on the judgement? thanks and regards, sazid On 1/24/20, Rajesh Hardayaldas Asudani wrote: > Yes, after DoPT issues necessary Office memorandum and Ministry of finance > forwards it for compliance. > > > सादर / With thanks & Regards > राजेश आसुदानी Rajesh Asudani > सहायक महाप्रबन्धक AGM > बाजार आसूचना ईकाई MIU > भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक Reserve Bank of India > नागपुर Nagpur > > 0712 2806846 > > President > VIBEWA > Co-Moderator > VIB-India > President > DARE-Disability Advocacy, Research and Education > A-pilll = Action coupled with Positivity, Interest, Love, Logic and > laughter > > -Original Message- > From: AccessIndia [mailto:accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in] On Behalf > Of ?? Akash Gupta > Sent: 23 January 2020 20:00 > To: AccessIndia: a list for discussing accessibility and issues concerning > the disabled. > Subject: Re: [AI] Fwd: Judgment on reservation in promotion > > Will this order will applicable on all government banks? > > On 21/01/2020, bhawani shankar verma wrote: >> yes, it is clearcut order in judgment that DOPT have to issue fresh OM >> in the context of this judgment. >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "vivek doddamani" >> To: "AccessIndia: a list for discussing accessibility and issues >> concerning the disabled." >> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 3:51 PM >> Subject: Re: [AI] Fwd: Judgment on reservation in promotion >> >> >>> Regarding this jJudgement I had discussion in administration branch >>> of my Office there they said promotion cannot be given on Supreme >>> court judgement, department of personnal & training DOPT of >>> Government of India should endorsement of this judgement then only it >>> can be possible for implement of this judgement. >>> >>> On 1/21/20, Binni Kumari wrote: >>>> 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 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 wrote: >>>>>> Review Petition (C) No. 36 OF 2017 in Civil Appeal No. 5389 of >>>>>> 2016 judgement >>>>>> >>>>>> https://indiankanoon.noclick_org/doc/190245590/ >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 12:11 PM Kasimani C >>>>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>
Re: [AI] Fwd: Judgment on reservation in promotion
Yes, after DoPT issues necessary Office memorandum and Ministry of finance forwards it for compliance. सादर / With thanks & Regards राजेश आसुदानी Rajesh Asudani सहायक महाप्रबन्धक AGM बाजार आसूचना ईकाई MIU भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक Reserve Bank of India नागपुर Nagpur 0712 2806846 President VIBEWA Co-Moderator VIB-India President DARE-Disability Advocacy, Research and Education A-pilll = Action coupled with Positivity, Interest, Love, Logic and laughter -Original Message- From: AccessIndia [mailto:accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in] On Behalf Of ?? Akash Gupta Sent: 23 January 2020 20:00 To: AccessIndia: a list for discussing accessibility and issues concerning the disabled. Subject: Re: [AI] Fwd: Judgment on reservation in promotion Will this order will applicable on all government banks? On 21/01/2020, bhawani shankar verma wrote: > yes, it is clearcut order in judgment that DOPT have to issue fresh OM > in the context of this judgment. > > - Original Message - > From: "vivek doddamani" > To: "AccessIndia: a list for discussing accessibility and issues > concerning the disabled." > Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 3:51 PM > Subject: Re: [AI] Fwd: Judgment on reservation in promotion > > >> Regarding this jJudgement I had discussion in administration branch >> of my Office there they said promotion cannot be given on Supreme >> court judgement, department of personnal & training DOPT of >> Government of India should endorsement of this judgement then only it >> can be possible for implement of this judgement. >> >> On 1/21/20, Binni Kumari wrote: >>> 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 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 wrote: >>>>> Review Petition (C) No. 36 OF 2017 in Civil Appeal No. 5389 of >>>>> 2016 judgement >>>>> >>>>> https://indiankanoon.noclick_org/doc/190245590/ >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 12:11 PM Kasimani C >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>
Re: [AI] Fwd: Judgment on reservation in promotion
Will this order will applicable on all government banks? On 21/01/2020, bhawani shankar verma wrote: > yes, it is clearcut order in judgment that DOPT have to issue fresh OM in > the context of this judgment. > > - Original Message - > From: "vivek doddamani" > To: "AccessIndia: a list for discussing accessibility and issues concerning > the disabled." > Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 3:51 PM > Subject: Re: [AI] Fwd: Judgment on reservation in promotion > > >> Regarding this jJudgement I had discussion in administration branch of >> my Office there they said promotion cannot be given on Supreme court >> judgement, department of personnal & training DOPT of Government of >> India should endorsement of this judgement then only it can be >> possible for implement of this judgement. >> >> On 1/21/20, Binni Kumari wrote: >>> 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 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 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 >>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> can anyone summarise the judgement ,please! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 1/21/20, Prasanna Kumar Pincha wrote: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Begin forwarded message: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >> From: Prasanna Pincha >>>>>>> >> Date: 20 January 2020 at 2:29:02 PM GMT-5 >>>>>>> >>
Re: [AI] Fwd: Judgment on reservation in promotion
Please check this Reservation In Promotion For Persons With Disability (PWDs) Not Prohibited: SC Upholds 2-Judge Bench Decision [Read Judgment] | | | | || | | | | | Reservation In Promotion For Persons With Disability (PWDs) Not Prohibited: SC Upholds 2-Judge Bench Decision [Read Judgment] The Supreme Court has observed that the rule of no reservation in promotions as laid down in Indra Sawhney has no application to Persons With Disability (PWD). A three judge bench headed by Justice Roh... | | | | Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 15:55, vivek doddamani wrote: Regarding this jJudgement I had discussion in administration branch of my Office there they said promotion cannot be given on Supreme court judgement, department of personnal & training DOPT of Government of India should endorsement of this judgement then only it can be possible for implement of this judgement. On 1/21/20, Binni Kumari wrote: > 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 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 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 >>> 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 wrote: > can anyone summarise the judgement ,please! > > On 1/21/20, Prasanna Kumar Pincha wrote: > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > >> From: Prasanna Pincha > >> Date: 20 January 2020 at 2:29:02 PM GMT-5 > >> To: "AccessIndia: a list for discussing accessibility and issues > >> concerning the disabled." > >> 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
Re: [AI] Fwd: Judgment on reservation in promotion
Regret to inform that your office is wrong. "Any Supreme Court judgment is in force unless overturned by a larger bench of the Court. .Therefore, at the present time the SC judgment in Rajeev Kumar Gupta’s case is very much in force." http://disabilitylaw.org.in/blog/2018/05/03/judgment-recall-reservation-in-promotion-for-disabled-employees/ Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 15:55, vivek doddamani wrote: Regarding this jJudgement I had discussion in administration branch of my Office there they said promotion cannot be given on Supreme court judgement, department of personnal & training DOPT of Government of India should endorsement of this judgement then only it can be possible for implement of this judgement. On 1/21/20, Binni Kumari wrote: > 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 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 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 >>> 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 wrote: > can anyone summarise the judgement ,please! > > On 1/21/20, Prasanna Kumar Pincha wrote: > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > >> From: Prasanna Pincha > >> Date: 20 January 2020 at 2:29:02 PM GMT-5 > >> To: "AccessIndia: a list for discussing accessibility and issues > >> concerning the disabled." > >> 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 > >> > >>
Re: [AI] Fwd: Judgment on reservation in promotion
Operative para of the judgment reads as: 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. The relevant paras of the three judgments which would now bind the government are as follows: 16. We do not agree with the respondent’s submission. Indra Sawhney ruling arose in the context of reservations in favour of backward 10 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.” In simple terms, it means that vacancies in all cadres A, B, C and D for PWD reservation are computed on the basis of total vacancies in each cadre and have to be reserved irrespective of mode of recruitment, direct as well as promotion. However, some issues which may emerge are: 1.Issue of OM being issued by DoPT; 2.Grade to which such reservation would be applicable as that for SC/ST is applicable to only a certain cadre despite it being provided for in constitution; 3.Promotion being linked to transfer 4.Importantly, the higher post not being identified. 5. Mis interpretation of Sanjay Kothari judgment, even though SC has clarified. सादर / With thanks & Regards राजेश आसुदानी Rajesh Asudani सहायक महाप्रबन्धक AGM बाजार आसूचना ईकाई MIU भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक Reserve Bank of India नागपुर Nagpur 0712 2806846 President VIBEWA Co-Moderator VIB-India President DARE-Disability Advocacy, Research and Education A-pilll = Action coupled with Positivity, Interest, Love, Logic and laughter सादर / With thanks & Regards राजेश आसुदानी Rajesh Asudani सहायक महाप्रबन्धक AGM बाजार आसूचना ईकाई MIU भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक Reserve Bank of India नागपुर Nagpur 0712 2806846 President VIBEWA Co-Moderator VIB-India President DARE-Disability Advocacy, Research and Education A-pilll = Action coupled with Positivity, Interest, Love, Logic and laughter -Original Message- From: AccessIndia [mailto:accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in] On Behalf Of Kasimani C Sent: 21 January 2020 12:30 To: AccessIndia: a list for discussing accessibility and issues concerning the disabled. Subject: Re: [AI] Fwd: Judgment on reservation in promotion Please friend, say exact theme of below mentioned judgment in short and sweet. https://main.sci.gov.noclick_in/supremecourt/2016/23612/23612_2016_4_101_19640_Judgement_14-Jan-2020.pdf On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 12:28 PM Kasimani C wrote: > > https://main.sci.gov.noclick_in/supremecourt/201
Re: [AI] Fwd: Judgment on reservation in promotion
yes, it is clearcut order in judgment that DOPT have to issue fresh OM in the context of this judgment. - Original Message - From: "vivek doddamani" To: "AccessIndia: a list for discussing accessibility and issues concerning the disabled." Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 3:51 PM Subject: Re: [AI] Fwd: Judgment on reservation in promotion Regarding this jJudgement I had discussion in administration branch of my Office there they said promotion cannot be given on Supreme court judgement, department of personnal & training DOPT of Government of India should endorsement of this judgement then only it can be possible for implement of this judgement. On 1/21/20, Binni Kumari wrote: 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 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 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 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 wrote: can anyone summarise the judgement ,please! On 1/21/20, Prasanna Kumar Pincha wrote: > > > Sent from my iPhone > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Prasanna Pincha >> Date: 20 January 2020 at 2:29:02 PM GMT-5 >> To: "AccessIndia: a list for discussing accessibility and issues >> concerning the disabled." >> 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 >&
Re: [AI] Fwd: Judgment on reservation in promotion
Regarding this jJudgement I had discussion in administration branch of my Office there they said promotion cannot be given on Supreme court judgement, department of personnal & training DOPT of Government of India should endorsement of this judgement then only it can be possible for implement of this judgement. On 1/21/20, Binni Kumari wrote: > 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 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 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 >>> 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 wrote: > can anyone summarise the judgement ,please! > > On 1/21/20, Prasanna Kumar Pincha wrote: > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > >> From: Prasanna Pincha > >> Date: 20 January 2020 at 2:29:02 PM GMT-5 > >> To: "AccessIndia: a list for discussing accessibility and issues > >> concerning the disabled." > >> 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 > >> > >>
Re: [AI] Fwd: Judgment on reservation in promotion
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 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 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 >> 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 >>> >>> wrote: >>> can anyone summarise the judgement ,please! On 1/21/20, Prasanna Kumar Pincha wrote: > > > Sent from my iPhone > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Prasanna Pincha >> Date: 20 January 2020 at 2:29:02 PM GMT-5 >> To: "AccessIndia: a list for discussing accessibility and issues >> concerning the disabled." >> 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)
Re: [AI] Fwd: Judgment on reservation in promotion
Please friend, say exact theme of below mentioned judgment in short and sweet. https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2016/23612/23612_2016_4_101_19640_Judgement_14-Jan-2020.pdf On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 12:28 PM Kasimani C wrote: > > https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2016/23612/23612_2016_4_101_19640_Judgement_14-Jan-2020.pdf > > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 12:13 PM Kasimani C > 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 >> 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 wrote: > > > Sent from my iPhone > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Prasanna Pincha >> Date: 20 January 2020 at 2:29:02 PM GMT-5 >> To: "AccessIndia: a list for discussing accessibility and issues >> concerning the disabled." >> 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 Conf
Re: [AI] Fwd: Judgment on reservation in promotion
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 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 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 >> >> wrote: >> >>> can anyone summarise the judgement ,please! >>> >>> On 1/21/20, Prasanna Kumar Pincha wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > Sent from my iPhone >>> > >>> > Begin forwarded message: >>> > >>> >> From: Prasanna Pincha >>> >> Date: 20 January 2020 at 2:29:02 PM GMT-5 >>> >> To: "AccessIndia: a list for discussing accessibility and issues >>> >> concerning the disabled." >>> >> 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 >>> >
Re: [AI] Fwd: Judgment on reservation in promotion
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2016/23612/23612_2016_4_101_19640_Judgement_14-Jan-2020.pdf On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 12:13 PM Kasimani C 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 > 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 wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > Sent from my iPhone >>> > >>> > Begin forwarded message: >>> > >>> >> From: Prasanna Pincha >>> >> Date: 20 January 2020 at 2:29:02 PM GMT-5 >>> >> To: "AccessIndia: a list for discussing accessibility and issues >>> >> concerning the disabled." >>> >> 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 dis
Re: [AI] Fwd: Judgment on reservation in promotion
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 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 > wrote: > >> can anyone summarise the judgement ,please! >> >> On 1/21/20, Prasanna Kumar Pincha wrote: >> > >> > >> > Sent from my iPhone >> > >> > Begin forwarded message: >> > >> >> From: Prasanna Pincha >> >> Date: 20 January 2020 at 2:29:02 PM GMT-5 >> >> To: "AccessIndia: a list for discussing accessibility and issues >> >> concerning the disabled." >> >> 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;
Re: [AI] Fwd: Judgment on reservation in promotion
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 wrote: > can anyone summarise the judgement ,please! > > On 1/21/20, Prasanna Kumar Pincha wrote: > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > >> From: Prasanna Pincha > >> Date: 20 January 2020 at 2:29:02 PM GMT-5 > >> To: "AccessIndia: a list for discussing accessibility and issues > >> concerning the disabled." > >> 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 b
Re: [AI] Fwd: Judgment on reservation in promotion
can anyone summarise the judgement ,please! On 1/21/20, Prasanna Kumar Pincha wrote: > > > Sent from my iPhone > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Prasanna Pincha >> Date: 20 January 2020 at 2:29:02 PM GMT-5 >> To: "AccessIndia: a list for discussing accessibility and issues >> concerning the disabled." >> 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 consider
