GOVT. OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & ANR.versusRAVI PRAKASH GUPTA & ANR.

                      [2010] 7 S.C.R. 851


      GOVT. OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & ANR.                        A
                                 v.
               RAVI PRAKASH GUPTA & ANR.
       (Special Leave Petition ( C) No. 14889 of 2009)

                          JULY 7, 2010
                                                                     B
       [ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]

       Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
  Protection, Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - ss. 32
  and 33 - Interpretation of - Held: Reservation u/s. 33 is not      C
  dependent on identification u/s. 32, though duty has been
  cast upon the Government to make appointments in the
  number of posts reserved .for the categorif!S mentioned in s.
  33 in respect of persons suffering from the disabilities - On
  facts, denial of appointment to visually impaired candidate        D
  who cleared Civil Services Examination on the ground that
  there was only one post meant for such persons, not correct
  - On account of failure of Government to identify posts for
  persons falling within the ambit of s. 33, candidate should not
  be deprived of the benefit of his selection purportedly on the     E
  ground that there were no available vacancies in the said
  category - High Court rightly rejected the submission that only
- after identification of posts suitable for such appointment uls.
  32, the provisions of s. 33 could be implemented - Thus,
  order of High Court that a clear vacancy was available to which
                                                                     F
  candidate could be accommodated on the basis of his
  position in the merit list, does not call for interference.

      The respondent no. 1 was a visually handicapped
  candidate. He was declared successful in the Civil
  Services Examination and was placed at serial no. 5 of             G
  the merit list of such candidates. The respondent no. 1
  was not given appointment on the ground that only one
  post was offered under the visually handicapped
  category. The respondent filed an application claiming
                            851                                      H
    852      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2010] 7 S.C.R.

A appointment under the reservation of vacancies for
     disabled categories uls. 33 of the Persons with
     Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection, Rights and
     Full Participation) Act, 1995. The respondent contended
     that the said Act came into force in 1996 and if the
8 vacancies were to be considered from the year 1996, then
     instead of one vacancy being declared for the year in
     question, there should have been at least reservation of
     3% of the posts available for the persons suffering from
 ..• different kinds of disabilities which is 7 vacancies from
C the reserved categories of disabilities and the same were
     interchangeable. The tribunal dismissed the application.
     The High Court set aside the order of the tribunal. Hence
     the appeal.

          Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Court
D
      HELD: 1.1 The respondent No.1 is eligible for
  appointment in the Civil Services after having been
  declared successful and having been placed at serial .
  no.5 in the disabled category of visually impaired
E candidates, cannot be denied. [Para 14) [862-C)

       1.2 The submission regarding the implementation of
  the provisions of section 33 of the Persons with
  Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection, Rights and
  Full Participation) Act, 1955, only after identification of
F posts suitable for such appointment, under section 32
  thereof, runs counter to the legislative intent with which
  the Act was enacted. To accept such a submission would
  amount to accepting a situation where the provisions of
  section 33 of the Act could be kept deferred indefinitely
G by bureaucratic inaction. Such a stand taken by the
  petitioners before the High Court was rightly rejected.
  Accordingly, the submission that identification of Grade
  'A' and 'B' posts in the l.A.S. was undertaken after the
  year 2005 is not Gf much substance. The High Court
H
 GOVT. OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & ANR. v. 853
             RAVI PRAKASH GUPTA

pointed out that neither section 32 nor section 33 of the        A
Act makes any distinction with regard to Grade 'A', 'B',
'C' and 'D' posts. They only speak of identification and
reservation of posts for people with disabilities, though
the proviso to section 33 does empower the appropriate
Government to exempt any establishment from the                  B
provisions of the said Section, having regard to the type
of work carried on in any department or establishment.
No such exemption has been pleaded or brought to the
notice of this Court 011 behalf of the petitioners. [Para 15]
(862-G-H; 863-A-C]                                               C

     1.3 It is only logical that, as provided in section 32 of
the Act, posts have to be identified for reservation for the
purposes of section 33, but such identification was
meant to be simultaneously undertaken with the coming
into operation of the Act, to give effect to the provisions      D
of section 33. The legislature never intended the
provisions of section 32 of the Act to be used as a tool
to deny the benefits of section 33 to these categories of
disabled persons indicated therein. Such a submission
strikes at the foundation of the provisions relating to the      E
duty cast upon the appropriate Government to make
appointments in every establisttment. [Para 16] (863-D-E]

    1.4 While it cannot be denied that unless posts are
identified for the purposes of section 33 of the Act, no         F
appointments from the reserved categories contained
therein can be made, and that to such extent the
provisions of section 33 are dependent on section 32 of
the Act, but the extent of such dependence would be for
the purpose of making appointments and not for the               G
purpose of making reservation. The reservation under
section 33 of the Act is not dependent on identification,
though a duty has been cast upon the appropriate
Government to make appointments in the number of
posts reserved for the three categories mentioned in
                                                                 H
    854      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 7 S.C.R.


A section 33 of the Act in respect of persons suffering from
  the disabilities spelt out therein. In fact, a situation has
  also been noticed where on account of non-availability
  of candidates some of the reserved posts could remain
  vacant in a given year. For meeting such eventualities,
s provision was made to carry forward such vacancies for
  two y1~ars after which they woi..ld lapse. Since in the
  instant case such a situation did not arise and posts were
  not reserved under section 33 of the Disabilities Act, 1995,
  the question of carrying forward of vacancies or lapse
c thereof, does not arise. [Para 17] [864-E-H; 865-A-B]
       1.ti There is no reason to interfere with the judgment
  of the High Court impugned in the Special Leave Petition.
  All interim orders are vacated. The petitioners shall pay
  the cost of these proceedings to the respondent no. 1
D assessed at Rs. 20,000/-. [Paras 19 and 20] [865-C-E]

       Francis Coralie Mullin vs. Administrator, Union Territory
  of Delhi & Ors (1981) 1 SCC 608; The National Federation
  of Blind vs. Union Public Service Commission & Ors. (1993)
E 2 SCC 411 - referred to.

                        Case Law Reference:
          (1981) 1 sec 608       Referred to.         Para 9
          (1993) 2 sec 411       Referred to.         Para 11
F
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil} No.
    14889 of 2009.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 25.02.2009 of the High
    Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No. 5429 of 2008.

        Indira Jaising, ASG, Rachna Srivastava, Naresh Kaushik,
    Samridhi Sinha, R.K. Tanwar, Sonam Anand, Anil Katiyar, Ravi
    Prakash Gupta (Respondent-In-person), Kashi Vishseshwar, A.
    Sumathi, S.K. Rungta, Pratiti Rungta, Samir Ali Khan, Binu
    Tamta, Upasana Nath for the appearing parties.
GOVT. OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & ANR. v.                    855
            RAVI PRAKASH GUPTA
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                        A

      ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. The Government of India, through
the Secretary, Ministry of Personnel & Public Grievances,
Department of Personnel and Training and through the
Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, has            B
filed this Special Leave Petition against the judgment and order
dated 25th February, 2009, passed by the Delhi High Court in
Writ Petition (Civil) No.5429 of 2008, allowing the Writ Petition
and setting aside the order dated 7th April, 2008, passed by
the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi,      C
in O.A. No.1397 of 2007, filed by the Respondent No.1 herein,
and allowing the reliefs prayed for therein.

     2. The Respondent No.1 is a visually handicapped person
who suffers from 100% blindness. He appeared in the Civil
Services Examination conducted by the Union Public Service            D
Commission in the year 2006. After clearing the preliminary
examination, the Respondent No.1 appeared for the main
examination in October, 2006 and was declared successful and
was, thereafter, called for a personality test scheduled for 1st
May, 2007. Pursuant to such interview, the names of 474               E
candidates who were selected were released on 14th May,
2007. In the said list, the name of one other visually impaired
candidate also figured. The Respondent No.1 was at serial no.5
of the merit list prepared for visually handicapped candidates,
who had been declared successful in the examination.                  F
According to the Respondent No.1, although there were more
than 5 vacancies available in the visually handicapped category,
only one post was offered under the said category and he was,
there.fore, not given appointment despite the vacancies
available.
                                                                      G
    3. Being aggrieved by the manner in which selections were
made for appointment in the visually handicapped category, the
Respondent No.1 filed a Writ .Petition, being Writ Petition (Civil)
No.5338 of 2007, before the Delhi High Court. The same was
                                                                      H
    856     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 7 S.C.R


A subsequently withdrawn since it was the Central Administrative
  Tribunal only which had jurisdiction to entertain such matters at
  the first instance. The Respondent No.1, accordingly, withdrew
  the Writ Petition, with liberty to approach the Central
  Administrative Tribunal. Thereafter, he filed an application under
8 Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which was
  registered as O.A. No.1397 of 2C07, staking his claim for
  appointment under the reservation of vacancies for disabled
  cateflOries provided for under Section 33 of the Persons with
  Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection, Rights and Full
C Participation) Act, 1995, hereinafter referred to as 'the
  Disabilities Act, 1995'. The basic contention of the Respondent
  No.1 was that since the aforesaid Act came into force in 1996
  providing a statutory mandate for reservation of 3% of the posts
  available for persons suffering from different kinds of disabilities
  enumerated in Section 33 of the Disabilities Act. 1995, such
D reservation ought to have been in force with effect from the date
  on which the Act came into force. According to the Respondent
  No.1, if the vacancies were to be considered from the year
  1996, then instead of one vacancy being declared for the year
  in question, there should have been at least 7 vacancies from
E the reserved categories of disabilities which were
  interchangeable. It was, therefore, the case of the Respondent
  No.1 that having regard to the number of appointments made
  with regard to the disabled categories reserved under Section
  33 of the Disabilities Act, 1995, since the Act came into force,
F there were at least 7 posts which could be filled up in the year
  2006. However, in that year only one post from this category
  had been filled. It was, therefore, the case of the Respondent
  No.1 that being at serial no.5 of the list of successful candidates
  amongst the physically impaired candidates, there were
G sufficient number of vacancies in which he could have been
  appointed and that the authorities had acted contrary to the
  provisions of the above Act upon the faulty reasoning that the
  vacancies in the reserved posts could not be declared, without
  first identifying the same for the purposes of Sections 32 and
H 33 of the Disabilities Act, 1995.
 GOVT. OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & ANR. v. 857
   RAVI PRAKASH GUPTA [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
     4. The case of the Respondent No.1 having been negated         A
by the Tribunal, the Respondent No.1 as indicated hereinbefore,
moved the High Court and the High Court, upon accepting the
Respondent No.1 's case, set aside the order of the Central
Administrative Tribunal dated 7th April, 2008, and allowed the
Respondent No.1 's 0.A. No.1397 of 2007 filed before the            B
Tribunal. While allowing the said application, the High Court,
upon observing that a clear vacancy was available to which the
Respondent No.1 could be accommodated on the basis of his
position in the merit list, issued a mandamus to the Respondent
No.1 to offer him an appointment to one of the reserved posts       c
by issuing an appropriate appointment letter, within six weeks
from the date of the order. Certain consequential orders were
also passed together with cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the
Petitioner herein.

       5. On behalf of the Government of India, which is the        D
Petitioner herein, learned Additional Solicitor General, Ms.
Indira Jaising, submitted that the submissions advanced on
behalf of the Respondent No.1 which had been accepted by
the High Court, were not tenable and that the Government of
India had been actively involved in complying with the provisions   E
of the Disabilities Act, 1995, after it came into force. The
learned ASG contended that the Government of India had been
making reservation for physically handicapped persons in
Group 'C' and 'D' posts from 1977 and in order to consider
the growing demand from the visually handicapped persons, a         F
meeting for identification of jobs in various Ministries/
Departments was scheduled in 1985 and 416 such posts were
identified in Group 'A' and 'B' posts. In 1986, an Office
Memorandum was issued by tr · epartment of Personnel &
Training (DoPT) providing for preference to be given to             G
handicapped person for these posts. In / 1988, another Office
Memorandum was issued by the Government of India indicating
that the identification done in the year 1986 would remain valid
till the same was modified. After the Act came into force in
1996, a further Office Memorandum was issued, whereby               H
    858     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 7 S.C.R.


A reservation of physically handicapped persons in identified
  Group 'A' and Group 'B' posts/services was extended to posts
  which were to be filled up through direct recruitment. Learned
  ASG submitted that in 1999 the Ministry of Social Justice &
  Empowerment constituted an Expert Committee to identify/
B review posts in categories 'A, 'B', 'C' and 'D', in which
  recommendations were made for identification of posts for the
  visually handicapped persons. The report of the Expert
  Committee was accepted by the Ministry in 2001 and posts
  were duly identified for persons with disabilities. Learned ASG,
c however, made it clear that the 416 posts, which had been
  identified in 1985, did not include All India Services and that
  for the first time in 2005, the posts of the Indian Administrative
  Service were identified in compliance with the provisions of
  Section 33 of the Disabilities Act, 1995 and pursuant to such
   identification, the posts were reserved and filled up. Ms. Jaising
0
   also submitted that reservation upto 3% of vacancies in the
   reserved posts were, accordingly, identified with effect from
   2006 and the claim of the Respondent No.1 for appointment
   on the basis of the argument that the reservation should have
E taken effect from 1996 when the Act came into force, was
   liable to be rejected.

        6. Appearing in-person, Mr. Ravi Prakash Gupta, the
  Respondent No.1 herein, strongly defended the impugned
  judgment of the High Court and urged that the Special Leave
F Petition filed by the Government of India was liable to be
  dismissed. Mr. Gupta submitted that the fact that he was
  completely blind was known to the Petitioners and their
  respective authorities from the very beginning, since ,he had
  annexed his blindness certificate with his original application
G in the proforma provided by the Union Public Service
  Commission (U.P.S.C.), which showed the percentage of his
  blindness as 100%. Howeve• the main thrust of Mr. Gupta's
  submissions was that when the Disabilities Act, 1995, came
   into force in 1996, it was the duty of the concerned authorities
H to reserve 3% of the total vacancies available immediately
GOVT. OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & ANR. v.                    859
  RAVI PRAKASH GUPTA [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
thereafter. The plea of non-identification of posts prior to the    A
year 2006 was only an attempt to justify the failure of the
Petitioners to act in terms of the Disabilities Act, 1995. Mr.
Gupta submitted that the High Court had negated such
contention made on behalf of the Petitioners and rightly
directed the Petitioners to calculate the number of vacancies       B
in terms of Section 33 of the above Act from 1996 when the
said Act came into force.

     7. Mr. Gupta then submitted that in terms of the
Department's OM No.3635/3/2004 dated 29th December,
2005, reservations have been earmarked and should have C
been made available from 1996 itself and in the event the
vacancies could not be filled up owing to lack of candidates,
the same could have been carried forward for two years after
which the same could have been treated as lapsed. Mr. Gupta
submitted that although the Petitioners were fully aware of the D
said Office Memorandum, they chose not to act on the basis
thereof and as admitted on behalf of the Government of India,
the IAS cadre was identified in 2006 for the purposes of
Section 33 of the Disabilities Act, 1995. In fact, the Act
remained on paper as far as visually challenged candidates E
were concerned and only after the judgments of the Delhi High
Court in the case of Ravi Kumar Arora and in the case of T.D.
Dinakar were delivered, that the identification process was
started. Mr. Gupta submitted that it would be pertinent to
mention that the two above-mentioned candidates were F
appointed in the Civil Services without waiting for identification
of their respective services on the orders of the High Court.

      8. Mr. Gupta submitted that the plea of non-identification
of posts in the IAS till the year 2006 could not absolve the
petitioners of their statutory obligation to provide for reservation G
in terms of Section 33 of the aforesaid Act.

     9. During the course of hearing, leave had been granted
to one A.V. Prema Nath and one Mr. Rajesh Singh to intervene
in the proceedings. The submissions made by the Respondent          H
    860     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     (2010] 7 S.C.R.


A   No.1 have been repeated and reiterated on behalf of the
    Intervenor No.1, Shri A.V. Prema Nath by A. Sumathi, learned
    Advocate. His written submissions are embellished with
    references to various decisions of this Court, including the
    decision in Francis Coralie Mullin vs. Administrator, Union
B   Territory of Delhi & Ors. ((1981) 1 SCC 608], regarding the right
    to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The main thrust of
    the submissions is with regard to the denial of rights to persons
    with disabilities under Section 33 of the Disabilities Act, 1995,
    which prevent them from enjoying their fundamental rights to
C   equality and the right to live, by the State.

         10. More detailed submissions were made by Mr. S.K.
    Rungta, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Intervenor
    No.2, Mr. Rajesh Singh, and it was also sought to be pointed
    out that the said intervenor was himself a candidate from
D   amongst the visually impaired candidates and had, in fact, been
    placed at serial no.3 in rank in the merit list for visually impaired
    candidates in the Central Services Examinations, 2006,
    whereas the Respondent No.1 had been placed at serial no.5.
    In other words, what was sought to be projected was that Shri
E   Rajesh Singh had a better claim for appointment from amongst
    the visually impaired candidates over the Respondent No.1
    and that if the vacancies in the reserved category were to be
    calculated from 1996 and even from 2001, when identification
    of posts in respect of Civil Services forming part of the IAS
F   Cadre was sought to be effected and a notification to that effect
    was issued, the Respondent No.1 could not have been
    appointed.

         11. It was further submitted that in the decision of this Court
    in The National Federation of Blind vs. Union Public Service
G   Commission & Ors. [(1993) 2 SCC 411 ], the demand by blind
    candidates for being permitted to write the examination in
    Braille script, or with the help of a Scribe, for posts in the IAS
    was duly accepted for recruitment to the lowest posts in the
    service reserved for such persons. It was also held that blind
 GOVT. OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & ANR. v.                    861
   RAVI PRAKASH GUPTA [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

and partially blind persons were eligible for appointment in           A
Government posts. It was submitted that the submissions made
on behalf of the Petitioners that the notification in respect of the
services in respect of the Group 'A' and 'B' services in the IAS
in 2005 was not a fresh exercise, but only an attempt to
consolidate and strengthen the identification already available        B
and that such an exercise could at best be said to be enabling
and supplementary action for the smooth implementation of the
statutory provisions containing the scheme of reservation for
persons with disabilities, could not be taken as an excuse to
postpone the benefit which had already accrued to candidates           c
falling within 3% of the vacancies indicated in Section 33 of the
Disabilities Act, 1995. It was also urged that after the issuance
of OM dated 29th December, 2005 and OM dated 26th April,
2006, there was hardly any room for the Government of India
to deny the benefit of reservation to persons with disabilities,       0
including the blind, in Civil Services encompassing the IAS from
the year 1996 itself. Furthermore, since the Act itself did not
make any distinction between Group 'A' and Group 'B' services
 and Group 'C' and Group 'D' services, it;was not available to
the Government of India to contend that since identification had       E
 been done only for Group 'C' and Group 'D' services, prior to
the year 2005, reservation in respect of Group 'A' and 'B'
services, which include the IAS, for which identification was
commenced in 2005, would only be available thereafter.

    12. On behalf of the Intervenor No.2, it was submitted that        F
the Special Leave Petition was liable to be dismissed with
exemplary costs.

     13. We have examined the matter with great care having
regard to the nature of the issues involved in relation to the         G
intention of the legislature to provide for integration of persons
with disabilities into the social main stream and to lay down a
strategy for comprehensive development and programmes and
services and equalization of opportunities for persons with
disabilities and for their education, training, employment and         H
    862     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 7 S.C.R


A rehabilitation amongst other responsibilities. We have
  considered the matter from the said angle to ensure that the
  object of the Disabilities Act, 1995, which is to give effect to
  the proclamation on the full participation and equality of the
  people with disabilities in the Asian and Pacific Region, is
B fulfilled.

        14. That the Respondent No.1 is eligible for appointment
  iA the Civil Services after having been declared successful and
  having been placed at serial no.5 in the disabled category of
C visually impaired candidates, cannot be denied. The only
  question which is relevant for our purpose is whether on account
  of the failure of the Petitioners to identify posts for persons
  falling within the ambit of Section 33 of the Disabilities Act,
  1995, the Respondent No.1 should be deprived of the benefit
  of his selection purportedly on the ground that there were no
D available vacancies in the said category. The other question
  which is c0nnected with the first question and which also
  requires our consideration is whether the reservation provided
  for in Section 33 of the Disabilities Act, 1995, was dependent
  on identification of posts suitable for appointment in such
E categories, as has been sought to be contended on behalf of
  the Government of India in the instant case.

       15. Although, the Delhi High Court has dealt with the
  aforesaid questions, we wish to add a few observations of our
F own in regard to the objects which the legislature intc>nded to
  achieve by enacting the aforesaid Act. The submission made
  on behalf of the Union of India regarding the implementation of
  the provisions of Section 33 of the Disabilities Act, 1995, only
  after identification of posts suitable for such appointment, under
G Section 32 thereof, runs counter to the legislative intent with
  which the Act was enacted. To accept such a submission would
  amount to accepting a situation where the provisions of Section
  33 of the aforesaid Act could be kept deferred indefinitely by
  bureaucratic inaction. Such a stand taken by the petitioners
  before the High Court was rightly rejected. Accordingly, the
H
 GOVT. OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & ANR. v.                 863
   RAVI PRAKASH GUPTA [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

submission made on behalf of the Union of India that               A
identification of Grade 'A' and 'B' posts in the l.A.S. was
undertaken after the year 2005 is not of much substance. As
has been pointed out by the High Court, neither Section 32 nor
Section 33 of the aforesaid Act makes any distinction with
regard to Grade 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D' posts. They only speak of    s
identification and reservation of posts for people with
disabilities, though the proviso to Section 33 does empower
the appropriate Government to exempt any establishment from
the provisions of the said Section, having regard ta the type of
work carried on in any department or establishment. No such        c
exemption has been pleaded or broughtto our notice on behalf
of the petitioners.

     16. It is only logical that, as provided in Section 32 of the
aforesaid Act, posts have to be identified for reservation for the.
purposes of Section 33, but such identification was meant to D
be simultaneously undertaken with the coming into operation
of the Act, to give effect to the provisions of Section 33. The
legislature never intended the provisions of Section 32 of the
Act to be used as a tool to deny the benefits of Section 33 to
these categories of disabled persons indicated therein. Such E
a submission strikes at the foundation of the prov.sions relating
to the duty cast upon the appropriate Government to make
appointments in every establishment (emphasis added). For
the sake of reference, Sections 32 and 33 of the Disabilities
Act, 1995, are reproduced hereinbelow :                             F

    "32. /dentification of posts which can be reserved for
    persons with disabilities.- Appropriate Governments shall


      (a)   Identify posts, in the establishments, which can be    G
            reserved for the persons with disability;

      (b)   At periodical intervals not exceeding three years,
            review the list of posts identified and up-date the
                                                                   H
    864      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2010] 7 S.C.R.

A                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
B
          of persons with disability of which one per cent each shall
          be reserved for persons suffering from-

          (i) blindness or low vision;

c         (ii) hearing impairment;

          (iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy,

          in the posts identified for each disability:

o         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."
E       17. While it cannot be denied that unless posts are·
  identified for the purposes of Section 33 of the aforesaid Act,
  no appointments from the reserved categories contained
  therein can be made, and that to such extent the provisions of
  Section 33 are dependent on S~ction 32 of the Act, as
F submitted by the learned ASG, but the extent of such
  dependence would be for the purpose of making appointments
  and not for the purpose of making reservation. In other words,
  reservation under Section 33 of the Act. is not dependent on
  identification, as urg2d on behalf of the Union of India, though
G a duty has been cast upon the appropriate Government to
  make appointments in the number of posts reserved for the
  three categories mentioned in Section 33 of the Act in respect
  of persons suffering from the disabilities spelt out therein. In
  fact, a situation has also been noticed where on account of non-
H availability of candidates some of the reserved posts could
GOVT. OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & ANR. v. 865
  RAVI PRAKASH GUPTA [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
remain vacant in a given year. For meeting such eventualities,       A
provision was made to carry forward such vacancies for two
years after which they would lapse. Since in the instant case
such a situation did not arise and posts were not reserved under
Section 33 of the Disabilities Act, 1995, the question of carrying
forward of vacancies or lapse thereof, does not arise.               B

     18. The various decisions cited by A. Sumathi, learned
Advocate for'the first intervenor, Shri A.V. Prema Nath, are not
of assistance in the facts of this case, which depends on its
own facts and interpretation of Sections 32 and 33 of the            C
Disabilities Act, 1995.

      19. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the
judgment of the High Court impugned in the Special Leave
Petition which is, accordingly, dismissed with costs. All interim
orders are vacated. The petitioners are given eight weeks' time      D
from today to give effect to the directions of the High Court.

     20. The petitioners shall pay the cost of these proceedings
to the respondent No.1 assessed at Rs.20,000/-, within four
weeks from date.
                                                                     E
N.J.                        Special Leave Petition dismissed.