Supreme Court of India
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusNATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND & ORS.
- Citation
- 2013 INSC 688
- Decided
- 8 October 2013
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- P SATHASIVAM
Holding
Section 33 mandates a uniform 3% reservation for persons with disabilities to be computed on the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength for all groups of posts.
Summary
The National Federation of the Blind filed a writ petition seeking enforcement of Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, alleging that the Union failed to provide the mandated 3% reservation for persons with disabilities, especially the blind and low‑vision categories. The High Court directed modification of the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 29‑12‑2005 to align with the Act, prompting the Union to appeal. The Supreme Court examined whether reservation under s.33 must be computed on the basis of total cadre vacancies (including identified and unidentified posts) and whether the same method applies uniformly to Group A, B, C and D posts. It held that s.33 unequivocally requires a 3% reservation calculated on total vacancies in the cadre strength for all groups, with identification of posts relevant only at the time of appointment, not for computing the quota. The Court also clarified that the reservation for persons with disabilities is horizontal and not subject to the 50% ceiling applicable to vertical reservations. Consequently, clauses of the OM contrary to this interpretation were struck down, and the Union was directed to issue a revised OM and ensure implementation within three months.
Issues considered
- Whether Section 33 reservation must be computed on total cadre vacancies or only on identified posts
- Whether the computation method differs for Group A/B versus Group C/D posts
- Whether reservation under Section 33 is post‑based or vacancy‑based
- Whether the 50% ceiling under Article 16(4) applies to disability reservation
- Whether the decision in R.K. Sabharwal is applicable to disability reservation
Legislation cited
- Companies Act, 1956s. 617
- Constitution of Indias. Article 16(1), s. Article 16(4)
- Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995s. 32, s. 33, s. 36, s. 41
Subjects
disability reservationSection 33Persons with Disabilities Actcadre strengthhorizontal reservationemployment reservationOffice Memorandumidentification of posts50% ceilinginterpretation of statutes
Judgment
[2013] 9 S.C.R. 1023
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. A
v.
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 9096 of 2013)
OCTOBER 08, 2013
B
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI
AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.]
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (EQUAL
OPPORTUNITIES, PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND FULL C
PARTICIPATION) ACT, 1995:
s. 33 - Reservation of posts for persons with disabilities -
Held: Section 33 Jays down that every appropriate
Government has to appoint on a minimum of 3% vacancies
in an establishment, persons with disabilities, out of which 1% D
each shall be reserved for (i) persons suffering from blindness
and low vision, (ii) persons suffering from hearing impairment
and (iii) persons suffering from locomotor or cerebral palsy -
- View of the High Court that computation of reservation must
be on the basis of total cadre strength is clearly e"oneous - E
s.33 establishes the intention of legislature viz. reservation of
3% for persons with disability should have to be computed on
the basis of total vacancies in the strength of a cadre and not
just on the basis of the vacancies available in the identified
posts. F
s. 33 - Reservation of posts for persons with disabilities -
Held: The Section does not distinguish the manner of
computation of reservation between Group A and B posts or
Group C and D posts respectively -- Computation of G
reservation for persons with disabilities has to be done in case
of Group A, B, C and D, posts in an identical manner viz.,
"computing 3% reservation on total number of vacancies in
the cadre strength" -- Accordingly, certain clauses in OM
1023 H
1024 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 9 S.C.R.
A dated 29. 12. 2005, which are contrary to scheme of
reservation, are struck down and appropriate Government is
directed to issue new Office Memorandum(s) consistent with
the decision rendered by the Court - In order to ensure proper
implementation of reservation policy for disabled and to
B protect their rights, further directions given - Government of
India, Department of Personnel and training 0. M. dated
29. 12. 2005.
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES:
C Construing of a provision - Held: While interpreting any
provision of a statute the plain meaning has to be given effect
and if language is simple and unambiguous, there is no need
to traverse beyond the same.
Headings and marginal notes - Held: Heading of a
D Section or marginal note may be relied upon to clear any
doubt or ambiguity in the interpretation of the provision and
to discern the legislative intent - When the Section is clear
and unambiguous, there is no need to traverse beyond those
words -- Therefore, the headings or marginal notes cannot
E control the meaning of the body of the section.
SOCIAL JUSTICE:
Reservation in employment for persons with disabilities
F - Held: Employment is a key factor in the empowerment and
inclusion of people with disabilities -- It is an alarming reality
that the disabled people are out of job not because their
disability comes in the way of their functioning rather it is social
and practical barriers that prevent them from joining the
workforce - Therefore, bringing them in the society based on
G their capabilities is the need of the hour - State has a
categorical obligation under the Constitution of India and
under various International treaties relating to human rights
in general and treaties for disabled persons in particular, to
protect the rights of disabled persons - Directions issued to
H
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. NATIONAL FEDERATION 1025
OF THE BLIND
ensure proper implementation of reservation policy for A
persons with disability and to protect their rights.
Respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition before the High
Court in public interest seeking implementation of s. 33
of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, B
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995
stating that the appellants failed to provide reservation_ to
the blind and low vision persons and they were virtually
excluded from the process of recruitment to the
Government posts as stipulated under the said Act. It was
asserted that despite statutory provisions and various C
executive orders, discrimination against the persons with
disabilities continued in filling up the vacancies in various
government departments. The stand of appellants was
that the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 29.12.2005,
issued by the Department of Personnel & Training, inter D
alia, provided a system for ensuring proper
implementation of the provisions of the Act for the
persons with disabilities. The High Court disposed of the
petition directing the Union of India to modify the OM
dated 29.12.2005 so as to be consistent with the E
provisions of s. 33 of the Act and issued several other
directions.
In the instant appeal, the issues for consideration
before the Court were: "(i) whether post base reservation F
must be adhered to or vacancy reservation; and (ii)
whether the modus of computation of reservation on the
basis of total number of vacancies (both inclusive of
identified and unidentified) in the cadre strength would
uniformly apply to Group A, B, C and D or would it be G
applicable only to Group C and D".
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities
(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full H
1026 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.
A Participation) Act, 1995 provides for reservation of posts
and s. 32 of the Act stipulates for identification of posts
which can be reserved for persons with disabilities. The
scope of identification comes into picture only at the time
of appointment of a person in the post identified for
B disabled persons and is not necessarily relevant at the
time of computing 3% reservation u/s 33 of the Act. In
succinct, it was held in Ravi Prakash Gupta that s. 32 of
the Act is not a precondition for computation of
reservation of 3% u/s 33 of the Act rather s. 32 is the
c following effect of s. 33. [para 22 and 29] [1050-E; 1054-
H; 1055-A]
Govt. of India through Secretary and Anr. v. Ravi Prakash
Gupta & Anr. 2010 (7) SCR 851 = (2010) 7 SCC 626 -
referred to.
D
1.2 There is a difference in computing reservation on
the basis of total cadre strength and on the basis of total
vacancies (both inclusive of identified and unidentified)
in the cadre strength. The view of the High Court, in the
E impugned judgment, that the computation of reservation
must be on the basis of total cadre strength is clearly
erroneous on the face of it. Apart from the reasoning of
this Court in Ravi Prakash Gupta, even a reading of s. 33
establishes vividly the intention of the legislature viz.,
F reservation of 3% for persons with disability has to be
computed on the basis of total vacancies in the strength
of a cadre and not just on the basis of the vacancies
available in the identified posts. There is no ambiguity in
the language of s.33. [para 26 and 30] [1051-E-H; 1052-
G A; 1055-B-C]
1.3 A perusal of s. 33 reveals that the section has
been divided into three parts. The first part is "every
appropriate Government shall appoint in every
establishment such percentage of vacancies not less
H than 3% for persons or class of persons with disability."
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. NATIONAL FEDERATION 1027
OF THE BLIND
This part mandates that every appropriate Government A
shall appoint a minimum of 3% vacancies in its
establishments for persons with disabilities. Therefore, it
cannot be said that reservation in terms of s. 33 has to
be computed against identified posts only. [para 31)
[1055-D-F] B
1.4 The second part of s.33 starts as," ... of which one
percent each shall be reserved for persons suffering
from blindness or low vision, hearing impairment &
locomotor disability or cerebral palsy in the posts
identified for each disability," which makes it clear that it C
deals with distribution of 3% posts in every establishment
among 3 categories of disabilities. The expression "of
which" has to relate to appointing not less than 3%
vacancies in an establishment and, in any way, it does
not refer to the identified posts. Further, in the last portion D
of the second part the words used are "in the identified
posts for each disability" and not "of identified posts".
This can only mean that out of minimum 3% of vacancies
of posts in the establishments 1% each has to be given
to each of the 3 categories of disability viz., blind and low E
vision, hearing impaired and locomotor disabled or
cerebral palsy separately and the number of
appointments equivalent to the 1% for each disability out
of total 3% has to be made against the vacancies in the
identified posts. The attempt to read identified posts in F
the first part itself and also to read the same to have any
relation with the computation of reservation is completely
misconceived. [para 32) [1055-F-H; 1056-A-E]
1.5 The third part of s.33 is the proviso which reads,
"Provided that the appropriate Government may, having G
regard to the type of work carried on in any department
or establishment, by notification subject to such
conditions, if any, as may be specified in such
notification, exempt any establishment from the
provisions of this section." The proviso also justifies the H
1028 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 9 S.C.R.
A interpretation that the computation of reservation has to
be against the total number of vacancies in the cadre
strength and not against the identified posts. [para 33]
[1056-E-H; 1057-A-B]
1.6 Besides, s. 41 of the Act mandates the appropriate
8 Government to frame incentive schemes for employers
with a view to ensure that 5% of their work force is
composed of persons with disabilities. On a conjoint
reading of ss. 33 and 41, it is clear that while s. 33
provides for a minimum level of representation of 3% in
C the establishments of appropriate Government, the
legislature intended to ensure 5% of representation in the
entire work force both in public as well as private sector.
[para 34] [1057-8-C, E-F]
1.7 Moreover, ss. 38 and 39 of the Draft Rights of
0
Persons with Disabilities Bill, 2012 clarify all the
ambiguities raised in the instant appeal. The intention of
the legislature is clearly to reserve in every establishment
under the appropriate Government, not less than 3% of
the vacancies for the persons or class of persons with
E disability, of which 1% each shall be reserved for each
of the three categories of disability. [para 35) [1059-C-D]
1.8 The Act is a social legislation enacted for the
benefit of persons with disabilities and its provisions
F must be interpreted in order to fulfill its objective. Besides,
it is a settled rule of interpretation that if the language of
a statutory provision is unambiguous, it has to be
interpreted according to the plain meaning of the said
statutory provision. Court only interprets the law and
G cannot legislate it. It is the function of the Legislature to
amend, modify or repeal it, if deemed necessary. [para 36
and 44] [1059-E-F; 1064-C-D]
1.9 The heading of a Section or marginal note may
be relied upon to clear any doubt or ambiguity in the
H interpretation of the provision and to discern the
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. NATIONAL FEDERATION1029
OF THE BLIND
legislative intent. When the Section is clear and A
unambiguous, there is no need to traverse beyond those
words. Therefore, the headings or marginal notes cannot
control the meaning of the body of the section. In the
instant case, s.33 of the 1995 Act is clear and
unambiguous. [para 45] [1064-D-F] B
2.1 Section 33 of the 1995 Act does not distinguish
the manner of computation of reservation between Group
A and B posts or Group C and D posts respectively. As
such, one statutory provision cannot be interpreted and
applied differently for the same subject matter. [para 38] C
[1061-A-B]
2.2 This Court holds that computation of reservation
for persons with disabilities has to be computed in case
of Group A, B, C and D posts in an identical manner viz.,
0
"computing 3% reservation on total number of vacancies
in the cadre strength" which is the intention of the
legislature. Accordingly, certain clauses in the OM dated
29.12.2005, which are contrary to the scheme of
reservation, as interpreted in the judgment, are struck
down and the appropriate Government is directed to E,
issue new Office Memorandum(s) consistent with the
decision rendered by this Court. [para 51] [1067-B-D]
3. A perusal of Indra Sawhney would reveal that the
ceiling of 50% reservation applies only to reservation in F
favour of other Backward classes under Art. 16(4) of the
Constitution of India whereas the reservation in favour of
persons with disabilities is horizontal, which ~s under
Art.16(1) of the Constitution. In fact, this Court in the said
pronouncement has used the example of 3% reservation ' ·
in favour of persons with disabilities while dealing with G
the rule of 50% ceiling. Para 95 of the judgment clearly
brings out that after selection and appointmerit of
candidates under reservation for persons with disa.bilities
they will be placed in the respective rosters- c:>f reserved
category or open category respectively on the basis of H
1030 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.
A the category to which they belong and, thus, the
rese_rvation for persons with disabilities per se has
nothing to do with the ceiling of 50%. and, therefore, Indra
Sawhney is not applicable with respect to the disabled
persons. It is also reiterated that the decision in R.K.
B Sabharwal is not applicable to the reservation for the
persons with disabilities because in the said case, the
point for consideration was with regard to the
implementation of the scheme of reservation for SC, ST
& OBC, which is vertical reservation, whereas reservation
c in favour of persons with disabilities is horizontal. [para
41, 52 and 53] [1062-A-D; 1067-D-F]
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India and Others 1992 (2)
Suppl. SCR 454 =AIR 1993 SC 477; and R. K. Sabharwal
and Others v. State of Punjab and Others 1995 (2) SCR 35 =
D (1995) 2 SCC 745 - held inapplicable.
4.1 Employment is a key factor in the empowerment
and inclusion of people with disabilities. It is an alarming
reality that the disabled people are out of job not because
E their disability comes in the way of their functioning
rather it is social and practical barriers that prevent them
from joining the workforce. Therefore, bringing them in
the society based on their capabilities is the need of the
hour. The Union of India, the State Governments as well
F as the Union Territories have a categorical obligation
under the Constitution of India and under various
International treaties relating to human rights in general
and treaties for disabled persons in particular, to protect
the rights of disabled persons. Even though the Act was
G enacted way back in 1995, the disabled people have
failed to get required benefit until today. [para 20, 49 and
50] [1050-A-B; 1066-F-G; 1067-A-B]
4.2 In order to ensure proper implementation of the
reservation policy for the persons with disability and to
H protect their rights, it is directed:
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. NATIONAL FEDERATION1031
OF THE BLIND
(i) The appellant shall issue an appropriate order A
modifying the OM dated 29.12.2005 and the
subsequent OMs consistent with this Court's
judgment within three months.
(ii) The "appropriate Government" shall compute the
8
number of vacancies available in all the
"establishments" and further identify the posts for
disabled persons within a period of three months and
implement the same without default.
(iii) The appellants shall issue instructions to all the C
departments/public sector undertakings/Government
companies declaring that non observance of the
scheme of reservation for persons with disabilities
should be considered as an act of non-obedience and
Nodal Officer in department/public sector D
undertakings/Government companies, responsible for
the proper strict implementation of reservation for
person with disabilities, be departmentally proceeded
against for the default. [para 54] [1067-G-H; 1068-A-D]
Prakash Nath Khanna & Anr. v. Commissioner of E
Income Tax & Anr. 2004 (2) SCR 434 = (2004) 9 SCC 686 -
referred to.
Case Law Reference:
F
2010 (7) SCR 851 referred to para 27
1992 (2) Suppl. SCR 454 held inapplicable· para 40
2004 (2) SCR 434 referred to para 43
1995 (2) SCR 35 held inapplicable para 46 G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
9096 of 2013.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.2008 of the
H
1032 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.
A High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.
15828 of 2006.
Indira Jaising ASG, S.P. Singh, Rajeev Nanda, Kiran
Bhardwaj, B.V. Bairam Das, B. Krishna Prasad, Anindita
B Pujari, Sarad Kumar Singhania, R. Prabhakaran, G.S. Mani,
Shunu Chauhan, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for the appearing
parties S.K. Rungta (In person).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
C P. SATHASIVAM, CJI. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and
order dated 19.12.2008 passed by the High Court of Delhi at
New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 15828 of 2006 wherein the
High Court interpreted Section 33 of the Persons with
D Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995 (in short 'the Act') and issued various
directions to be complied with by the appellants herein.
3. Brief facts:
E
(a) National Federation of the Blind-Respondent No. 1
herein is an apex organization and a society registered under
the Societies Registration Act, 1860, having its Head Office at
New Delhi and is working for the protection of the rights of the
F visually challenged.
(b) In the year 2006, Respondent No. 1 herein filed a writ
petition before the High Court in public interest seeking
implementation of Section 33 of the Act alleging that the
appellants herein have failed to provide reservation to the blind
G and low vision persons and they are virtually excluded from the
process of recruitment to the Government posts as stipulated
under the said Act.
(c) In the above backdrop, it is relevant to mention that way
H back in 1977, the erstwhile Ministry of Social Welfare,
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. NATIONAL FEDERATION 1033
OF THE BLIND [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
Government of India, made reservation in favour of the following · A
three categories of disabled persons in Group C & D posts to
the extent of 1 per cent each for the (i) Blind; (ii) H~aring and
Speech Impairment; and (iii) persons suffering from locomotor
.,
disability. In the year 1986, the Department of Personnel &
Training (DoPT), directed all the departments to take into B
account both identified and unidentified posts for working out
the total number of vacancies to be reserved for each of the
disabled categories. In spite of the above said executive order,
various government departments and public sector
undertakings did not give effect to the scheme of reservation c
which compelled Respondent No. 1 herein to organize a nation
wide agitation, as a result of which, an agreement was arrived
at between the parties on 27.08.1987 to undertake a Special
Recruitment Drive for clearing up the backlog of vacancies,
(d) On 07 .02.1996, the Persons with Disabilities (Equal D
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act,
1995 was brought into force making reservation of at least 3
percent posts in all government establishments to the extent of
1 per cent each for the persons suffering from (i) blindness or
low vision; (ii) hearing impairment; and (iii) locomotor disability E
or cerebral palsy. After enactment of the said Act, Union of India
issued various orders for ensuring proper implementation of the
provisions of the Act for the persons with disabilities.
(e) Respondent No. 1 herein, by filing the above said F
petition before the High Court asserted that despite statutory
provisions and various executive orders, discrimination against
the persons with disabilities continued in filling up the vacancies
in various government departments whereas it. was contended
by the other side that the Office Memorandum (OM} ~ated G
29.12.2005, issued by the Department of Personnel & Trainjng,
inter alia provides a system for ensuring proper implementation
of the provisions of the Act for the persons with disabilities.
(f) Vide order dated 19.12.2008, the High Court'disposed
of the petition directing the Union of India to modify the OM H
•'
1034 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.
A dated 29.12.2005 being inconsistent with the provisions of
Section 33 of the Act and issued several other directions.
(g) Being aggrieved of the above, the appellants have
preferred this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
B (h) Tamil Nadu Handicapped Federation Charitable Trust,
Smt S. Rajeswari and Association for Physically Challenged
People Ordnance Clothing Factory filed applications for
impleadment. Vide order dated 22.07.2011, this Court did not
allow them to implead but to act as intervenors in the
C proceedings.
4. Heard Ms. Indra Jaisingh, learned Additional Solicitor
General for the Union of India, Mr. S.K. Rungta, learned senior
counsel (R-1) appearing in person and Mr. R. Prabhakaran,
0 learned counsel for lntervenors.
Submissions:
5. Ms. Indra Jaisingh, learned Additional Solicitor General
for the Union of India, after taking us through various provisions
E of the Act and OM(s) issued by the Government of India
submitted that the impugned judgment of the High Court is
against the provisions of the Act. She further pointed out that
the finding of the High Court that in terms of Section 33 of the
Act, 3% reservation for the disabled persons has to be
F computed on the basis of total strength of the cadre, i.e., both
identified as well as unidentified posts is erroneous. In any
event, according to her, the direction of the High Court to work
out backlog vacancies for the disabled persons on the total
cadre strength in different establishments within one month from
G the date of the order is impractical and not executable. It is
further highlighted that according to Section 33 of the Act,
reservation to the persons with disabilities in an establishment
shall be 3% of the vacancies arising in the posts which are
identified for the persons with disabilities. The High Court, by
H the impugned judgment, disturbed the very basic system of the
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. NATIONAL FEDERATION 1035
OF THE BLIND [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
reservation of posts for the persons with disabilities. She further A
highlighted that the reservation for Group C and D posts is
being calculated on the basis of the vacancies in identified as
well as unidentified posts prior to the Act came into existence
and in view of the provisions of Section 72 of the Act, continued
in the same way, however, reservation for Group A and B posts B
is being calculated on the basis of the vacancies for identified
posts as per the provisions of the Act.
6. On the other hand, Mr. S.K. Rungta, learned senior
counsel (R-1) appearing in person submitted that in terms of
the provisions of the Act, more particularly, Sections 32 and 33 C
of the Act, it is obligatory on the part of the Government
establishments to provide at least 3% reservation of posts in
the total cadre strength and not in the identified vacancies. He
further pointed out that though the Act was passed in 1995 since
then the provisions have not been strictly implemented. He D
prayed for further time bound direction for implementation of
the same.
7. Mr. R. Prabhakaran, learned counsel for intervenors
reiterated the submissions made by Mr. S.K. Rungta. E
·8. We have perused all the relevant materials and
considered the rival submissions.
Relevant Provisions:
F
9. In order to answer the rival contentions, it is desirable
to quote the relevant provision of the Act. Sections 2(a), 2(i),
2(j) and 2(k) of the Act read as under:
"2(a) "appropriate Government" means,-
G
(i) in relation to the Central Government or any
establishment wholly or substantially financed by
that Government, or a Cantonment Board
constituted under the Cantonment Act, 1924 (2 of
1924), the Central Government; H
1036 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.
A (ii) in relation to a State Government or any
establishment wholly or substantially financed by
that Government or any local authority, other than a
Cantonment Board, the State Government;
(iii) in respect of the Central Co-ordination Committee
B
and the Central Executive Committee, the Central
Government;
(iv) in respect of the State Co-ordination Committee
and the State Executive Committee, the State
c Government;
2(i) "Disability" means-
(i) blindness;
D (ii) low vision;
(iii) leprosy-cured;
(iv) hearing impairment;
E (v) locomotor disability;
(vi) mental retardation;
(vii) mental illness;
F 20) "employer'' means,-
(i) in relation to a Government, the authority notified by
the Head of the Department in this behalf or where
no such authority is notified, the Head of the
Department; and
G
(ii) in relation to an establishment, the Chief Executive
Officer of that establishment;
2(k) "establishment" means a corporation established by
H or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or an authority
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. NATIONAL FEDERATION 1037
OF THE BLIND [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
or a body owned or controlled or aided by the Government A
or a local authority or a Government company as defined
in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956)
and includes Departments of a Government;"
10. Among the above definitions, we are more concerned 8
with the definition of "establishment" under Section 2(k) of the
Act, which is an exhaustive definition and covers (i) a
corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or
State Act, or (ii) an authority or a body owned or controlled or
- aided by the Government or a local authority, or (iii) a C
Government company as defined in Section 617 of the
Companies Act, 1956 and (iv) Departments of a Government.
11. Chapter VI of the Act deals with the employment of
persons with disabilities. The relevant Sections of the said
Chapter are as under:- D
"32. Identification of posts which can be reserved for
persons with disabilities. - Appropriate Governments
shall-
(a) identify posts, in the establishments, which can E
be reserved for the persons with disability;
(b) at periodical intervals not exceeding three
years, review the list of posts identified and up-date
the list taking into consideration the developments F
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 G
persons or class of persons with disability of which one
per cent each shall be reserved for persons suffering from-
(i) blindness or low vision;
(ii) hearing impairment; H
1038 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.
A (iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy,
in the posts identified for each disability:
Provided that the appropriate Government may,
having regard to the type of work carried on in any
8 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.
c 36. Vacancies not filled up to be carried forward.-
Where in any recruitment year any vacancy under section
33, cannot be filled up due to non-availability of a suitable
person with disability or, for any other sufficient reason,
such vacancy shall be carried forward in the succeeding
D recruitment year and if in the succeeding recruitment year
also suitable person with disability is not available, it may
first be filled by interchange among the three categories
and only when there is no person with disability available
for the post in that year, the employer shall fill up the
vacancy by appointment of a person, other than a person
E
with disability:
Provided that if the nature of vacancies in an
establishment is such that a given category of person
cannot be employed, the vacancies may be interchanged
F among the three categories with the prior approval of the
appropriate Government."
12. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections
(1} and (2) of Section 73 of the Act, the Central Government
G enacted the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules, 1996.
13. After enactment of the above Act, in order to
consolidate the existing instructions in line with the provisions
of the Act, on 29.12.2005, Government of India, Department of
H Personnel and Training, issued certain instructions by way of
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. NATIONAL FEDERATION 1039
OF THE BLIND [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
an Office Memorandum (OM), with regard to the reservation for A
the persons with disabilities (physically handicapped persons)
in posts and services. The said Office Memorandum
specifically states that it shall supersede all previous
instructions issued on the subject so far. Respondent No. 1
herein has commended various clauses of the OM dated B
29.12.2005. The relevant clauses of the same are extracted
herein below:
"2. QUANTUM OF RESERVATION
(i) Three percent of the vacancies, in case of direct C
recruitment to Group A, B, C and D posts shall be reserved
for persons with disabilities of which one per cent each
shall be reserved for persons suffering from (i) blindness
or low vision, {ii) hearing impairment and {iii) locomotor
disability or cerebral palsy in the posts identified for each D
disability;
{ii) Three percent of the vacancies in case of promotion
to Group D, and Group C posts in which the element of
direct recruitment, if any, does not exceed 75%, shall be E
reserved for persons with disabilities of which one per cent
each shall be reserved for persons suffering from {i)
blindness or low vision, {ii) hearing impairment and {iii)
locomotor disability or cerebral palsy in the posts identified
for each disability.
F
3. EXEMPTION FROM RESERVATION:
If. any Department/Ministry considers it necessary to
exempt any establishment partly or fully from the provisions
of reservation for persons with disabilities of which one G
percent each shall be reserved for persons suffering from
{i) blindness or low vision, {ii) hearing impairment and {iii)
locomotor disability or cerebral palsy in the posts identified
for each disability, it may make a reference to the Ministry
of Social Justice and Employment giving full justification H
1040 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.
A for the proposal. The grant of exemption shall be
considered by an Inter-Departmental Committee set up by
the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.
4. IDENTIFICATION OF JOBS/POSTS:
B The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment have
identified the jobs/posts suitable to be held by persons with
disabilities and the physical requirement for all such jobs/
posts vide their notification no. 16-25/99.Nll dated
31.5.2001. The jobs/posts given in Annexure II of the said
c notification as amended from time to time shall be used
to give effect to 3 per cent reservation to the persons with
disabilities. It may, however, be noted that:
(a) The nomenclature used for any job/post shall mean and
D include nomenclature used for other comparable jobs/
posts having identical functions.
(b) The list of jobs/posts notified by the Ministry of Social
Justice & Empowerment is not exhaustive. The concerned
Ministries/Departments shall have the discretion to identify
E jobs/posts in addition to the jobs/posts already identified
by the Ministry of Soqial Justice & Empowerment.
However, no Ministry/Department/Establishment shall
exclude any identified job/post from the purview of
reservation at its own discretion.
F
(c) If a job/post identified for persons with disabilities is
shifted from one group or grade to another group or grade
due to change in the pay-scale or otherwise, the job/post
shall remain identified.
G 13. COMPUTATION OF RESERVATION:
Reservation for persons with disabilities in case of Group
C and Group D posts shall be computed on the basis of
total number of vacancies occurring in all Group C or Group
H D posts, as the case may be, in the establishment, although
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. NATIONAL FEDERATION1041
. OF THE BLIND [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
the recruitment of the persons with disabilities would only A
be in the posts identified suitable for them. The number of
vacancies to be reserved for the persons with disabilities
in case of direct recruitment to Group C posts in an
establishment shall be computed by taking into account the
total number of vacancies arising .in Group C posts for B
being filled by direct recruitment in a recruitment year both
in the identified and non-identified posts under the
establishment. The same procedure shall apply for Group
D posts. Similarly, all vacancies in promotion quota shall
be taken into account while computing reservation in c
promotion in Group C and Group D posts. Since
reservation is li.mited to identified posts only and number
of vacancies reserved is computed on the basis of total
vacancies (in identified posts as well as unidentified posts),
it is possible that number of persons appointed by 0
reservation in an identified posts may exceed 3 percent.
14. Reservation for persons with disabilities in Group A
posts shall be computed on the basis of vacancies
occurring in direct recruitment quota in all the identified
Group A posts in the establishment. The same method of E
computation applies for Group B posts.
15. EFFECTING RESERVATION - MAINTENANCE OF
ROSTERS:
F
(a) all establishments shall maintain separate 100 point
reservation roster registers in the format given in Annexure
II for determining/effecting reservation for the disabled -
one each for Group A posts filled by direct recruitment,
Group B posts filled by direct recruitment, Group C posts
filled by direct recruitment, Group C posts filled by G
promotion, Group D posts filled by direct recruitment and
Group D posts filled by promotion.
(b) Each register shall have cycles of 100 points and each
cycle of 100 points shall be divided into three blocks, H
1042 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.
A comprising the following points :
1st Block - point No.1 to point No.33
2nd Block - point No.34 to point No.66
B 3rd Block - point No.67 to point No.100
(c) Points 1, 34, and 67 of the roster shall be earmarked
reserved for persons with disabilities - one point for each
of the three categories of disabilities. The head of the
establishment shall decide the categories of disabilities for
c which the points 1, 34 and 67 will be reserved keeping in
view all relevant facts.
(d) All the vacancies in Group C posts falling in direct
recruitment quota arising in the establishment shall be
D entered in the relevant roster register. If the post falling at
point No.1 is not identified for the disabled or the head of
the establishment considers it desirable not to fill up by a
disabled person or it is not possible to fill up that post by
the disabled for any other person, one of the vacancies
E falling at any of the points from 2 to 33 shall be treated as
reserved for the disabled and filled as such. Likewise a
vacancy falling at any of the points from 34 to 66 or from
67 to 100 shall be filled by the disabled. The purpose of
keeping points 1, 34 and 67 as reserved is to fill up the
F first available suitable vacancy from 1 to 33, first available
suitable vacancy from 34 to 66 and first available suitable
vacancy from 67 to 100 persons with disabilities.
(e) There is a possibility that none of the vacancies from
1 to 33 is suitable for any category of the disabled. In that
G case two vacancies from 34 to 66 shall be filled as
reserved for persons with disabilities. If the vacancies from
34 to 66 are also not suitable for any category, three
vacancies shall be filled as reserved from the third block
containing points from 67 to 100. This means that if no
H vacancy can be reserved in a particular block, it shall be
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. NATIONAL FEDERATION 1043
OF THE BLIND [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
carried into the next block. A
(f) After all the 100 points of the roster are covered, a fresh
cycle of 100 points shall start.
(g) If the number of vacancies in a year is such as to cover
only one block or two, discretion as to which category of B
the disabled should be accommodated first shall vest in
the head of the establishment, who shall decide on the
basis of the nature of the post, the level of representation
of the specific disabled category in the concerned grade/
post etc. C
(h) A separate roster shall be maintained for Group C
posts filled by promotion and procedure as explained
above shall be followed for giving reservation to persons
with disabilities. Likewise two separate rosters shall be D
maintained for Group D posts, one for the posts filled by
direct recruitment and another for posts filled by promotion.
(i) Reservation in Group A and Group B posts is
determined on the basis of vacancies in the identified
posts only. Separate rosters for Group A posts and Group E
B posts in the establishment shall be maintained. In the
rosters maintained for Group A and Group B posts, all
vacancies of direct recruitment arising in identified posts
shall be entered and reservation shall be effected the same
way as explained above. F
16. INTER SE EXCHANGE AND CARRY FORWARD
OF RESERVATION IN CASE OF DIRECT
RECRUITMENT
(a) Reservation for each of the three categories of persons G
with disabilities shall be made separately. But if the nature
of vacancies in an establishment is such that a person of
a specific category of disability cannot be employed, the
vacancies may be interchanged among the three
H
1044 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 9 S.C.R.
A categories with the approval of the Ministry of Social
Justice and Empowerment and reservation may be
determined and vacancies filled accordingly.
(b) If any vacancy reserved for any category of disability
cannot be filled due to non-availability of a suitable person
B
with that disability or, for any other sufficient reason, such
vacancy shall not be filled and shall be carried forward as
a 'backlog reserved vacancy' to the subsequent recruitment
year.
c (c) In the subsequent recruitment year the backlog reserved
vacancy shall be treated as reserved for the category of
disability for which it was kept reserved in the initial year
of recruitment. However, if a suitable person with that
disability is not available, it may be filled by interchange
D among the three categories of disabilities. In case no
suitable person with disability is available for filling up the
post in the subsequent year also, the employer may fill up
the vacancy by appointment of a person other than a
person with disability. If the vacancy is filled by a person
E with disability of the category for which it was reserved or
by a person of other category of disability by inter se
exchange in the subsequent recruitment year, it will be
treated to have been filled by reservation. But if the
vacancy is filled by a person other than a person with
F disability in the subsequent recruitment year, reservation
shall be carried forward for a further period upto two
recruitment years whereafter the reservation shall lapse.
In these two subsequent years, if situation so arises, the
procedure for filling up the reserved vacancy shall be the
same as followed in the first subsequent recruitment year.
G
19. HORIZONTALITY OF RESERVATION FOR
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES:
Reservation for backward classes of citizens (SCs, STs
H and OBCs) is called vertical reservation and the
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. NATIONAL FEDERATION1045
OF THE BLIND [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
reservation for categories such as persons with disabilities A
and ex- servicemen is called horizontal reservation.
Horizontal reservation cuts across vertical reservation (in
what is called interlocking reservation) and person
selected against the quota for persons with disabilities
have to be placed in the appropriate category viz. SC/ST/ B
OBC/General candidates depending upon the category to
which they belong in the roster meant for reservation of
SCs/STs/OBCs. To illustrate, if in a given year there are
two vacancies reserved for the persons with disabilities
and out of two persons with disabilities appointed, one c
belongs to a Scheduled Caste and the other to general
category then the disabled SC candidate shall be adjusted
against the SC point in the reservation roster and the
general candidate against unreserved point in the relevant
reservation roster. In case none of the vacancies falls on 0
point reserved for the SCs, the disabled candidate
belonging to SC shall be adjusted in future against the next
available vacancy reserved for SCs.
20. Since the persons with disabilities have to be placed
in the appropriate category viz. SC/ST/OBC/ General in E
the roster meant for reservation of SCs/STs/OBCs, the
application form for the post should require the candidates
applying under the quota reserved for persons with
disabilities to indicate whether they belong to SC/ST/OBC
or General category." F
14. Clauses 21 and 22 of the said OM enable the
Government for relaxation in age limit as well as standard of
suitability.
15. After the OM dated 29.12.2005, based on the G
representations made by Respondent No. 1 herein, another OM
dated 26.04.2006 came to be issued. The details and the
directions contained in the said OM are as follows:
H
1046 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 9 S.C.R.
A "Dated the 26th April, 2006
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Sub: Reservation for the Persons with Disabilities
B The undersigned is directed to say that the Persons
with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights
and Full Participation) Act, 1995 which came into existence
on 01.01.1996 provides for reservation for persons with
disability in the posts identified for three categories of
c disabilities namely (i) blindness or low vision, (ii) hearing
impairment and (iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy.
Instructions have also been issued by this Department for
providing reservation for such persons. In spite of the Act
and the instructions of this Department, vacancies were not
D earmarked reserved or were not filled by reservation in
some establishments.
2. The matter has been considered carefully and it has
been decided that reservation for persons with disabilities
should be implemented in right earnest and there should
E be no deviation from the scheme of reservation,
particularly after the Act came into effect. In order to
achieve this objective, all the establishments should
prepare the reservation roster registers as provided in this
Department's O.M. No. 36035/3/2004-Estt (Res) dated
F 29.12.2005 starting from the year 1996 and reservation for
persons with disabilities be earmarked as per instructions
contained in that OM. If some or all the vacancies so
earmarked had not been filled by reservation and were
filled by able bodied persons either for the reason that
G points of reservation had not been earmarked properly at
the appropriate time or persons with disabilities did not
become available, such unutilized reservation may be
treated as having been carried forward to the first
recruitment year occurring after issue of this O.M. and be
H filled as such. If it is not possible to fill up such reserved
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. NATIONAL FEDERATION 1047
OF THE BLIND [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.)
vacancies during the said recruitment year, reservation A
would be carried forward for further two years, whereafter
it may be treated as lapsed.
3. It has been observed that some recruiting agencies
declare in their advertisements that blind/partially blind B
candidates need not apply and that separate examinations
would be conducted for visually handicapped candidates.
Attention is invited to para 7 of this Department's O.M. No.
36035/3/2004-Estt (Res) dated 29.12.2005 which
provides that persons with disabilities selected on their C
own merit will not be adjusted against the reserved share
of vacancies. It means that persons with disabilities who
are selected on their own merit have to be adjusted
against the unreserved vacancies and reservation has to
be given in addition. If visually handicapped candidates or
any other category of handicapped candidates are D
debarred from applying on the ground that a separate
examination would be conducted for them, chances of
handicapped candidates being selected on their own merit
would be eliminated. Thus, debarring of any category of
handicapped candidates in the above manner is against E
the provisions contained in the aforesaid O.M. It is,
therefore, requested that persons with disabilities should
not be debarred from applying for the posts identified
suitable for them and should be provided opportunity to
compete for the unreserved vacancies as well by holding F
a common examination.
4. Contents of this O.M. may be brought to the notice of
all concerned.
Sd/- G
(K.G.Verma)
Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of India"
16. Another OM dated 10.12.2008, issued by the
Department of Personnel and Training, was also brought to our H
1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 9 S.C.R.
A notice whereunder a Special Recruitment Drive to fill up the
backlog reserved vacancies for the persons with disabilities
was initiated. The said OM mainly speaks about filling up of
"backlog reserved vacancies". Relevant portion of the said OM
is extracted hereinbelow:
B
"Dated the 10th December, 2008
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Sub: Special Recruitment Drive to fill up the backlog
c reserved vacancies for Persons with Disabilities
The undersigned is directed to say that this
Department's O.M. No. 36035/3/2004-Estt(Res) dated
29.12.2005 provides that if any vacancy reserved for any
category of disability cannot be filled due to non-availability
D of a suitable person with that disability or for any other
sufficient reason, such vacancy is not filled and is carried
forward as a 'backlog reserved vacancy' to the subsequent
recruitment year. In the subsequent recruitment year, the
'backlog reserved vacancy' is treated as reserved for the
E category of disability for which it was kept reserved in the
initial year of recruitment and filled as such. However, if a
suitable person with that disability is not available in the
subsequent recruitment also, it may be filled by interchange
among the three categories of disabilities, failing which by
F appointment of a person other than a person with disability.
It may, thus, be seen that if a vacancy is earmarked
reserved for any category of disability and a suitable
person with that disability is not available to fill it up in the
initial year of recruitment, it becomes a 'backlog reserved
G vacancy' for first subsequent recruitment year.
2. As per instructions existing prior to issue of O.M. dated
29.12.2005, if in any year, suitable physically handicapped
candidates were not avail~ble to fill up a reserved
vacancy, the vacancy was filled by an other category
H
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. NATIONAL FEDERATION 1049
OF THE BLIND [P. SATHASIVAM., CJI.]
candidate and reservation was carried forward for a period A
of upto three recruitment years. In the event of non-
availability of suitable persons with disabilities, the
reserved vacancies were not kept unfilled. Thus there was
no provision of backlog reserved vaca.ncies of persons
with disabilities prior to 29.12.2005. Nevertheless, it is B
possible that some Ministries/Departments/ establishments
might have kept some vacancies earmarked reserved for
the persons with disability unfilled due to non-availability
of persons with disability. If there exist such vacancies,
these will be treated as backlog reserved vacancies for c
the current recruitment year"
17. By issuing such directions, the Department of
Personnel and Training directed all the Ministries/Departments
to launch a Special Recruitment Drive and fixed target dates
for fulfilling various stages. D
Discussion:
18. In the light of the above statutory provisions as well as
various clauses of the OM dated 29.12.2005, let us analyze E
whether the High Court was justified in passing the impugned
judgment.
19. Before adverting to the rival contentions submitted by
the appellants and the respondents, it is relevant to comprehend
the background and the objective of the Persons with F
Disabilities {Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995.
20. India as a welfare State is committed to promote
overall development of its citizens including those who are G
differently abled in order to enable them to lead a life of dignity,
equality, freedom and justice as mandated by the Constitution
of India. The roots of statutory provisions for ensuring equality
and equalization of opportunities to the differently abled citizens
in our country could be traced in Part Ill and Part IV of the
H
1050 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.
A Constitution. For the persons with disabilities, the changing
world offers more new opportunities owing to technological
advancement, however, the actual limitation surfaces only when
they are not provided with equal opportunities. Therefore,
bringing them in the society based on their capabilities is the
B need of the hour.
21. Although, the Disability Rights Movement in India
commenced way back in 1977, of which Respondent No. 1
herein was an active participant, it acquired the requisite
C sanction only at the launch of the Asian and Pacific Decade of
Disabled Persons in 1993-2002, which gave a definite boost
to the movement. The main need that emerged from the meet
was for a comprehensive legislation to protect the rights of
persons with disabilities. In this light, the crucial legislation was
enacted in 1995 viz., the Persons with Disabilities (Equal
D Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act,
1995 which empowers persons with disabilities and ensures
protection of their rights. The Act, in addition to its other
prospects, also seeks for better employment opportunities to
persons with disabilities by way of reservation of posts and
E establishment of a Special Employment Exchange for them.
22. For the same, Section 32 of the Act stipulates for
identification of posts which can be reserved for persons with
disabilities. Section 33 provides for reservation of posts and
F Section 36 thereof provides that in case a vacancy is not filled
up due to non-availability of a suitable person with disability, in
any recruitment year such vacancy is to be carried forward in
the succeeding recruitment year. The difference of opinion
between the appellants and the respondents arises on the
G point of interpretation of these sections.
23. It is the stand of the Union of India that the Act provides
for only 3% reservation in the vacancies in the posts identified
for the disabled persons and not on the total cadre strength of
the establishment whereas Mr. S.K. Rungta, learned senior
H counsel (R-1) appearing in person submitted that accepting the
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. NATIONAL FEDERATION 1051
OF THE BLIND [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
interpretation proposed by the Union of India will flout the policy A
of reservation encompassed under Section 33 of the Act. He
further submitted that the High Court has rightly held that the
reservation of 3% for differently abled persons in conformity with
the Act should have to be computed on the basis of the total
strength of a cadre and not just on the basis of the vacancies B
available in the posts that are identified for differently abled
persons, thereby declaring certain clauses of the OM dated
29.12.2005 as unacceptable and contrary to the mandate of
Section 33 of the Act.
24. Two aspects of the impugned judgment have been C
challenged before this Court:-
(a) The manner of computing 3% reservation for the
persons with the disabilities as per Section 33 of
the Act. D
(b) Whether post based reservation must be adhered
to or vacancy based reservation.
25. Now let us consider the reasoning of the High Court
and the submissions made by the parties. E
26. Primarily, we would like to clarify that there is a sea of
difference in computing reservation on the basis of total cadre
strength and on the basis of total vacancies (both inclusive of
identified and unidentified) in the cadre strength. At the outset, F
a reference to the impugned OM dated 29.12.2005 would, in
unequivocal terms, establish that the matter in dispute in the
given case is whether the latter method of computation of
reservation will uniformly apply to the posts in Group A, B, C
and D or will it be applicable only to Group C and D. The G
question pertaining to computation of reservation on the basis
of total cadre strength does not even arise in the given
circumstance of the case. However, the High Court, in the
impugned judgment, went on to uphold the view that the
computation of reservation must be on the basis of total cadre H
1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.
A strength which is clearly erroneous on the face of it.
Inadvertently, the respondents herein have also adopted the
same line of argument in their oral and written submissions. As
a result, the point for consideration before this Court is whether
the modus of computation of reservation on the basis of total
B number of vacancies (both inclusive of identified and
unidentified) in the cadre strength will uniformly apply to Group
A, B, C and Dor will it be applicable only to Group C and D.
27. It is the stand of the Union of India that for vivid
understanding of the reservation policy laid down under Section
C 33 of the Act, it is essential to read together Sections 32 and
33 of the Act. It was also submitted that a conjoint reading of
the above referred sections, mandates only reservation of
vacancies in the identified posts and not in all the posts or
against the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength.
D However, it was also admitted that the computation of
reservation is being done in respect of Group C and D posts
on the basis of total number of vacancies (both inclusive of
identified and unidentified) in the cadre strength since 1977.
In fact, the abovesaid contention has been raised in Govt. of
E India through Secretary and Anr. vs. Ravi Prakash Gupta &
Anr. (2010) 7 sec 626 and, therefore, it is no longer res
integra.
28. The question for determination raised in this cas~ is
F whether the reservation provided for the disabled persons
under Section 33 of the Act is dependent upon the identification
of posts as stipulated by Section 32. In the aforementioned
case, the Government of India sought to contend that since they
have conducted the exercise of identification of posts in civil
services in terms of Section 32 only in the year 2005, the
G reservation has to be computed and applied only with reference
to the vacancies filled up from 2005 onwards and not from 1996
when the Act came into force. This Court, after examining the
inter-dependence of Sections 32 and 33 viz., identification of
posts and the scheme of reservation, rejected this contention
H and held as follows:-
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. NATIONAL FEDERATION1053
OF THE BLIND [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
"25 ..... .The submission made on behalf of the Union of A
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
Section 32 thereof, runs counter to the legislative intent with
which the Act was enacted. To accept such a submission B
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 submission made on behalf of c
the Union of India that identification of Grade 'A' and ·s·
posts in the l.A.S. was undertaken after the year 2005 is
not of much substance.
26. As has been pointed out by the High Court, neither
Section 32 nor Section 33 of the aforesaid Act makes any D
distinction with regard to Groups 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 provisions of the said Section, E
having regard to the type of work carried on in any
department or establishment. No such exemption has been
pleaded or brought to our notice on behalf of the
petitioners.
F
27. 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 be simultaneously undertaken with the coming
into operation of the Act, to give effect to the provisions of G
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 duty cast H
1054 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.
A upon the appr6priate Government to make appointments
in every establishment.
29. While it canne.t be denied that unless posts are
identified for the purposes of Section 33 of the aforesaid
Act, no appointments from the reserved categories
B
contained therein can be made, and that to such extent the
provisions of Section 33 are dependent on Section 32 of
the Act, as 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
c reservation. In other words, reservation under Section 33
of the Act is not dependent on identification, as urged on
behalf of the Union of India, though a duty has been cast
upon the appropriate Government to make appointments
in the number of posts reserved for the three categories
D 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-
availability of candidates some of the reserved posts could
remain vacant in a given year. For meeting such
E eventualities, 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
F lapse thereof, does not arise.
31. 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
G
weeks' time from today to give effect to the directions of
the High Court."
29. In the light of the above pronouncement, it is clear that
the scope of identification comes into picture only at the time
H of appointment of a person in the post identified for disabled
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. NATIONAL FEDERATION 1055
OF THE BLIND [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
persons and is not necessarily relevant at the time of computing A
3% reservation under Section 33 of the Act. In succinct, it was
held in Ravi Prakash Gupta (supra) that Section 32 of the Act
is not a precondition for computation of reservation of 3% under
Section 33 of the Act rather Section 32 is the following effect
of Section 33. B
30. Apart from the reasoning of this Court in Ravi Prakash
Gupta (supra), even a reading of Section 33, at the outset,
establishes vividly the intention of the legislature viz., reservation
of 3% for differently abled persons should have to be computed C
on the basis of total vacancies in the strength of a cadre and
not just on the basis of the vacancies available in the identified
posts. There is no ambiguity in the language of Section 33 and
from the construction of the said statutory provision only one
meaning is possible.
D
31. A perusal of Section 33 of the Act reveals that this
section has been divided into three parts. The first part is
"every appropriate Government shall appoint in every
establishment such percentage of vacancies not less than 3%
for persons or class of persons with disability." It is evident from E
this part that it mandates every appropriate Government shall
appoint a minimum of 3% vacancies in its establishments for
persons with disabilities. In this light, the contention of the Union
of India that reservation in terms of Section 33 has to be
computed against identified posts only is not tenable by any F
method of interpretation of this part of the Section.
32. The second part of this section starts as follows: " ... of
which one percent each shall be reserved for persons suffering
from blindness or low vision, hearing impairment & locomotor
disability or cerebral palsy in the posts identified for each G
disability." From the above, it is clear that it deals with
distribution of 3% posts in every establishment among 3
categories of disabilities. It starts from the word "of which". The
word "of which" has to relate to appointing not less thar;i 3%
vacancies in an establishment and, in any way, it does not' refer H
1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.
A to the identified posts. In fact, the contention of the Union of
India is sought to be justified by bringing the last portion of the
second part of the section viz. " ... .identified posts" in this very
first part which deals with the statutory obligation imposed upon
the appropriate Government to "appoint not less than 3%
B vacancies for the persons or class of persons with disabilities."
In our considered view, it is not plausible in the light of
established rules of interpretation. The minimum level of
representation of persons with disabilities has been provided
in this very first part and the second part deals with the
C distribution of this 3% among the three categories of disabilities.
Further, in the last portion of the second part the words used
are "in the identified posts for each disability" and not "of
identified posts". This can only mean that out of minimum 3%
of vacancies of posts in the establishments 1% each has to be
given to each of the 3 categories of disability viz., blind and low
0
vision, hearing impaired and locomotor disabled or cerebral
palsy separately and the number of appointments equivalent to
the 1% for each disability out of total 3% has to be made
against the vacancies in the identified posts. The attempt to
read identified posts in the first part itself and also to read the
E same to have any relation with the computation of reservation
is completely misconceived.
33. The third part of the Section is the proviso which reads
thus: "Provided that the appropriate Government may, having
F regard to the type of work carried on in any department or
establishment, by notification subject to such conditions, if any,
as may be specified in such notification, exempt any
establishment from the provisions of this section." The proviso
also justifies the above said interpretation that the computation
G of reservation has to be against the total number vacancies in
the cadre strength and not against the identified posts. Had the
legislature intended to mandate for computation of reservation
against the identified posts only, there was no need for
inserting the proviso to Section which empowers the
H appropriate Government to exempt any establishment either
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. NATIONAL FEDERATION 1057
OF THE BLIND [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
partly or fully from the purview of the Section subject to such A
conditions contained in the notification to be issued in the
Official Gazette in this behalf. Certainly, the legislature did not
intend to give such arbitrary power for exemption from
reservation for persons with disabilities to be exercised by the
appropriate Government when the computation is intended to B
be made against the identified posts.
34. In this regard, another provision of the said Act also
supports this interpretation. Section 41 of the said Act
mandates the appropriate Government to frame incentive
schemes for employers with a view to ensure that 5% of their C
work force is composed of persons with disabilities. The said
section is reproduced hereinbelow:
"41. Incentives to employers to ensure five per cent
of the work force is composed of persons with· D
disabilities.- The appropriate Government and the local
authorities shall, within limits to their economic capacity
and development, provide incentives to employers both in
public and private sectors to ensure that at least five
percent of their work force is composed of persons with E
disabilities."
Thus, on a conjoint reading of Sections 33 and 41, it is clear
that while Section 33 provides for a minimum level of
representation of 3% in the establishments of appropriate
F
Government, the legislature intended to ensure 5% of
representation in the entire work force both in public as well as
private sector.
35. Moreover, the intention of the legislature while framing
the Act can also be inferred from the Draft Rights of Persons G
with Disabilities Bill, 2012, which is pending in the Parliament
for approval. In Chapter 6 of the Bill, viz., Special Provisions
for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities, similar sections like
Sections 32 & 33 in the Act have been incorporated under
Sections 38 and 39 which are as under:- H
1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.
A "Section 38. Identification of Posts which can be
Reserved for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities:
Appropriate Governments shall - (a) identify posts in
establishments under them which can be reserved for
persons with benchmark disability as mentioned in section
B
39;
(b) at periodical intervals not exceeding three years,
review and revise the list of identified posts, taking into
consideration developments in technology.
c
Section 39. Reservation of Posts for Persons with
Benchmark Disabilities:-
(1) Every appropriate Government shall reserve, in every
establishment under them, not less than 5% of the
D vacancies meant to be filled by direct recruitment, for
persons or class of persons with benchmark disability, of
which 1% each shall be of all posts reserved for persons
with following disabilities:-
E i) blindness & low vision (with reservation of 0.5% of
the vacancies for each of the two disabilities).
ii) hearing impairment & speech impairment.
iii) locomotor disability including cerebral palsy,
F leprosy cured and muscular dystrophy.
iv) autism, intellectual disability and mental illness
v) multiple disabilities from among i to iv above
including deaf blindness
G
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
H establishment from the provisions of this section.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. NATIONAL FEDERATION 1059
OF THE BLIND [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
(2) If sufficient number of qualified persons with benchmark A
disabilities are not available in a particular year, then the
reservation may be carried forward for upto the next three
recruitment years, and if in such succeeding recruitment
years also a suitable person with benchmark disability is
not available, then the post in the fourth year may be first B
filled by interchange among the categories of disabilities;
and only when there is no person with any benchmark
disability available for the post in that year, the vacancy
may be filled by appointment of a person, other than a
person with benchmark disability." c
A perusal of Sections 38 and 39 of the Bill clarifies all the
ambiguities raised in this appeal. The intention of the legislature
is clearly to reserve in every establishment under the
appropriate Government, not less than 3% of the vacancies for
the persons or class of persons with disability, of which 1% each D
shall be reserved for persons suffering from blindness or low
vision, hearing impairment and locomotor disability or cerebral
palsy in the posts identified for each disability.
36. Admittedly, the Act is a social legislation enacted for E
the benefit of persons with disabilities and its provisions must
be interpreted in order to fulfill its objective. Besides, it is a
settled rule of interpretation that if the language of a statutory
provision is unambiguous, it has to be interpreted according
to the plain meaning of the said statutory provision. In the F
present case, the plain and unambiguous meaning of Section
33 is that every appropriate Government has to appoint a
minimum of 3% vacancies in an establishment out of which 1%
each shall be reserved for persons suffering from blindness and
low vision, persons suffering from hearing impairment and G
persons suffering from locomotor or cerebral palsy.
37. To illustrate, if there are 100 vacancies of 100 posts
in an establishment, the concerned establishment will have to
reserve a minimum of 3% for persons with disabilities out of
which at least 1% has to be reserved separately for each of H
1060 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.
A the following disabilities: persons suffering from blindness or
low vision, persons suffering from hearing impairment and the
persons suffering from locomotor disability or cerebral palsy.
Appointment of 1 blind person against 1 vacancy reserved for
him/her will be made against a vacancy in an identified post
B for instance, the post of peon, which is identified for him in
group D. Similarly, one hearing impaired will be appointed
against one reserved vacancy for that category in the post of
store attendant in group D post. Likewise, one person suffering
from locomotor disability or cerebral palsy will be appointed
c against the post of "Farash" group D post identified for that
category of disability. It was argued on behalf of Union of India
with reference to the post of driver that since the said post is
not suitable to be manned by a person suffering from blindness,
the above interpretation of the Section would be against the
administrative exigencies. Such an argument is wholly
0
misconceived. A given post may not be identified as suitable
for one category of disability, the same could be identified as
suitable for another category or categories of disability entitled
to the benefit of reservation. In fact, the second part of the
Section has clarified this situation by providing that the number
E of vacancies equivalent to 1% for each of the aforementioned
three categories will be filled up by the respective category by
using vacancies in identified posts for each of them for the
purposes of appointment.
F 38. It has also been submitted on behalf of the appeliants
herein that since reservation of persons with disabilities in
Group C and D has been in force prior to the enactment and
is being made against the total number of vacancies· in the
cadre strength according to the OM dated 29.12.2005 but the
G actual import of Section 33 is that it has to be computed against
identified posts only. This argument is also completely
misconceived in view of the plain language of the said Section,
as deliberated above. Even, for the sake of arguments, if we
accept that the computation of reservation in respect of Group
H C and D posts is against the total vacancies in the cadre
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. NATIONAL FEDERATION1061
OF THE BLIND [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
strength because of the applicability of the scheme of A
reservation in Group C and D posts prior to enactment, Section
33 does not disti!lguish the manner of computation of
reservation between Group A and B posts or Group C and D
posts respectively. As such, one statutory provision cannot be
interpreted and applied differently for the same subject matter. B
39. Further, if we accept the interpretation contended by
the appellants that computation of reservation has to be against
the identified posts only, it would result into uncertainty of the
application of the scheme of reservation because experience
has shown that identification has never been uniform between C
the Centre and States and even between the Departments of
any Government. For example, while a post of middle school
teacher has been notified as identified as suitable for the blind
and low vision by the Central Government, it has not been
identified as suitable for the blind and low vision in some States D
such as Gujarat and J&K etc. This has led to a series of
litigations which have been pending in various High Courts. In
addition, Para 4 of the OM dated 29.12.2005 dealing with the
issue of identification of jobs/posts in sub clause (b) states that
list of the jobs/posts notified by the Ministry of Social Justice & E
Empowerment is not exhaustive which further makes the
computation of reservation uncertain and arbitrary in the event
of acceptance of the contention raised by the appellants.
40. Another contention raised by the appellants is that the F
computation of reservation against the total vacancies in the
cadre strength in Group A & B will violate the rule of 50% ceiling
of reservation in favour of SC, ST and OBC as laid down by
this Court in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India and Others AIR
1993 SC 477. This contention is also not tenable and is against G
the abovesaid judgment. It is difficult to understand as to how
the computation of reservation against total vacancies in the
cadre strength in Group A and B will violate 50% ceiling when
its computation on that basis in Group C and D will not violate
the said ceiling. There is no rationale of distinguishing between
H
1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R
A the manner of computation of reservation with regard to Group
A and B posts on the one hand and manner of computation of
reservation with regard to Group C and D posts on the other
on this ground~
41. A perusal of Indra Sawhney (supra) would reveal that
8
the ceiling of 50% reservation applies only to reservation in
favour of other Backward classes under Article 16(4) of the
Constitution of India whereas the reservation in favour of
persons with disabilities is horizontal, which is under Article
C 16(1) of the Constitution. In fact, this Court in the said
pronouncement has used the example of 3% reservation in
favour of persons with disabilities while dealing with the rule of
50% ceiling. Para 95 of the judgment clearly brings out that after
selection and appointment of candidates under reservation for
persons with disabilities they will be placed in the respective
D rosters of reserved category or open category respectively on
the basis of the category to which they belong and, thus, the
reservation for persons with disabilities per se has nothing to
do with the ceiling of 50%. Para 95 is reproduced as follows:-
E "95 ....... all reservations are not of the same nature. There
are two types of reservations, which may, for the sake of
convenience, be referred to as 'vertical reservations' and
'horizontal reservations'. The reservations in favour of
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other backward
F classes [under Article 16(4)] may be called vertical
reservations whereas reservations in favour of physically
handicapped [under Clause (1) of Article 16] can be
referred to as horizontal reservations. Horizontal
reservations cut across the vertical reservations - what is
called inter-locking reservations. To be more precise,
G
suppose 3% of the vacancies are reserved in favour of
physically handicapped persons; this would be a
reservation relatable to Clause (1) of Article 16. The
persons selected against this quota will be placed in the
appropriate category; if he belongs to S.C. category he will
H
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. NATIONAL FEDERATION1063
OF THE BLIND [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
be placed in that quota by making necessary adjustments; A
similarly, if he belongs to open competition (O.C.)
category, he will be placed in that category by making
necessary adjustments. Even after providing for these
horizontal reservations, the percentage of reservations in
favour of backward class of citizens remains - and should s
remain - the same ...... "
42. Yet another contention raised by the appellants is that
the reservation for persons with disabilities must be vacancy
based reservation whereas Respondent No. 1 herein
contended that it must be post based reservation as laid down C
by the High Court in the impugned judgment. Respondent No.
1 herein relied upon the heading of Section 33 of the Act, viz.,
'Reservation of Posts', to propose the view that the reservation
policy contemplated under Section 33 is post based
reservation. D
43. It is settled law that while interpreting any provision of
a statute the plain meaning has to be given effect and if
language therein is simple and unambiguous, there is no need
to traverse beyond the same. Likewise, if the language of the E
relevant section gives a simple meaning and message, it
should be interpreted in such a way and there is no need to
give any weightage to headings of those paragraphs. This
aspect has been clarified in Prakash Nath Khanna & Anr. vs.
Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr., (2004) 9 SCC 686. F
Paragraph 13 of the said judgment is relevant which reads as
under:
"13. It is a well-settled principle in law that the court cannot
read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and
unambiguous. A statute is an edict of the legislature. The G
language employed in a statute is the determinative factor
of legislative intent. The first and primary rule of
construction is that the intention of the legislation must be
found in the words used by the legislature itself. The
question is not what may be supposed and has been H
1064 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 9 S.C.R.
A intended but what has been said. "Statutes should be
construed, not as theorems of Euclid", Judge Learned
Hand said, "but words must be construed with some
imagination of the purposes which lie behind them". (See
Lenigh Valley Coal Co. v. Yensavage. The view was
s reiterated in Union of India v. Filip Tiago De Gama of
Vedem Vasco De Gama and Padma Sundara Rao v.
State Of T. N.. "
44. It is clear that when the provision is plainly worded and
unambiguous, it has to be interpreted in such a way that the
C Court must avoid the danger of a prior determination of the
meaning of a provision based on their own preconceived
notions of ideological structure or scheme into which the
provision to be interpreted is somewhat fitted. While
interpreting the provisions, the Court only interprets the law and
D cannot legislate it. It is the function of the Legislature to amend,
modify or repeal it, if deemed necessary.
45. The heading of a Section or marginal note may be
relied upon to clear any doubt or ambiguity in the interpretation
E of the provision and to discern the legislative intent. However,
when the Section is clear and unambiguous, there is no need
to traverse beyond those words, hence, the headings or
marginal notes cannot control the meaning of the body of the
section. Therefore, the contention of Respondent No. 1 herein
F that the heading of Section 33 of the Act is "Reservation of
posts" will not play a crucial role, when the Section is clear and
unambiguous.
46. Further, the respondents heavily relied on a decision
of the Constitution Bench in R. K Sabharwal and Others vs.
G State of Punjab and Others (1995) 2 SCC 745 to substantiate
their contention. Para 6 reads as under:-
"6. The expressions "posts" and "vacancies", often used
in the executive instructions providing for reservations, are
H rather problematical. The word "post" means an
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. NATIONAL FEDERATION 1065
OF THE BLIND [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
appointment, job, office or employment. A position to A
which a person is appointed. "Vacancy" means an
unoccupied post or office. The plain meaning of the two
expressions make it clear that there must be a 'post' in
existence to enable the 'vacancy' to occur. The cadre-
strength is always measured by the number of posts B
comprising the cadre. Right to be considered for
appointment can only be claimed in respect of a post in a
cadre. As a consequence the percentage of reservation
has to be worked out in relation to the number of posts,
which form the cadre-strength. The concept of 'vacancy' c
has no relevance in operating the percentage of
reservation."
47. Adhering to the decision laid by the Constitution Bench
in R.K Sabharwa/ (supra), the High Court held as follows:-
D
16. The Disabilities Act was enacted for protection of the
rights of the disabled in various spheres like education,
training, employment and to remove any discrimination
against them in the sharing of development benefits vis-
a-vis non-disabled persons. In the light of the legislative E
aim it is necessary to give purposive interpretation to
section 33 with a view to achieve the legislative
intendment of attaining equalization of opportunities for
persons with disabilities. The fact that the vacancy-based
roster is to be maintained does not mean that 3% F
reservation has to be computed only on the basis of
vacancy. The difference between the posts and vacancies
has been succinctly pointed out in the Supreme Court
decision in the case of R.K Sabharwal and Others vs. state
of Punjab and Others AIR 1995 SC 1371 wherein it was G
held that the word "post" means an appointment, job, office
or employment, a position to which a person is appointed.
"Vacancy" means an unoccupied post or office. The plain
meaning of the two expressions make it clear that there
must be a 'post' in existence to enable the vacancy to
H
1066 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.
A occur. The cadre-strength is always measured by the
number of posts comprising the cadre. Right to be
considered for appointment can only be claimed in respect
of a post in a cadre. As a consequence the percentage
of reservation has to be worked out in relation to the
B number of posts which from the cadre-strength. The
concept of 'vacancy' has no relevance in operating the
percentage of reservation. Therefore, in our opinion, 3 %
reservation for disabled has to be computed on the basis
of total strength of the cadre i.e. both identified as well as
c unidentified posts .... "
48. However, the decision in R.K Sabharwa/ (supra) is not
applicable to the reservation for the persons with disabilities
because in the above said case, the point for consideration
was with regard to the implementation of the scheme of
D reservation for SC, ST & OBC, which is vertical reservation
whereas reservation in favour of persons with disabilities is
horizontal. We harmonize with the stand taken by the Union of
India, the appellant herein in this regard. Besides, the judgment
in R.K Sabharwal (supra) was pronounced before the date on
E which the Act came into force, as a consequence, the intent of
the Act must be given priority over the decision in the above
said judgment. Thus, in unequivocal terms, the reservation
policy stipulated in the Act is vacancy based reservation.
F Conclusion:
49. Employment is a key factor in the empowerment and
inclusion of people with disabilities. It is an alarming reality that
the disabled people are out of job not because their disability
comes in the way of their functioning rather it is social and
G practical barriers that prevent them from joining the workforce.
As a result, many disabled people live in poverty and in
deplorable conditions. They are denied the right to make a
useful contribution to their own lives and to the lives of their
families and community.
H
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. NATIONAL FEDERATION 1067
OF THE BLIND [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
50. The Union of India, the State Governments as well as A
the Union Territories have a categorical obligation under the
Constitution of India and under various International treaties
relating to human rights in general and treaties for disabled
persons in particular, to protect the rights of disabled persons.
Even though the Act was enacted way back in 1995, the B
disabled people have failed to get required benefit until today.
51. Thus, after thoughtful consideration, we are of the view
that the computation of reservation for persons with disabilities
has to be computed in case of Group A, B, C and D posts in
an identical manner viz., "computing 3% reservation on total C
number of vacancies in the cadre strength" which is the
intention of the legislature. Accordingly, certain clauses in the
OM dated 29.12.2005, which are contrary to the above
reasoning are struck down and we direct the appropriate
Government to issue new Office Memorandum(s) in consistent D
with the decision rendered by this Court.
52. Further, the reservation for persons with disabilities has
nothing to do with the ceiling of 50% and hence, Indra Sawhney
(supra) is not applicable with respect to the disabled persons. E
53. We also reiterate that the decision in R.K. Sabharwal
(supra) is not applicable to the reservation for the persons with
disabilities because in the above said case, the point for
consideration was with regard to the implementation of the
scheme of reservation for SC, ST & OBC, which is vertical F
reservation, whereas reservation in favour of persons with
disabilities is horizontal.
Directions:
G
54. In our opinion, in order to ensure proper implementation
of the reservation policy for the disabled and to protect their
rights, it is necessary to issue the following directions:
(i) We hereby direct the appellant herein to issue an
appropriate order modifying the OM dated H
1068 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.
A 29.12.2005 and the subsequent OMs consistent
with this Court's Order within three months from the
date of passing of this judgment.
(ii) We hereby direct the "appropriate Government" to
compute the number of vacancies available in all
B
the "establishments" and further identify the posts
for disabled persons within a period of three
months from today and implement the same without
default.
c (iii) The appellant herein shall issue instructions to all
the departments/public sector undertakings/
Government companies declaring that the non
observance of the scheme of reservation for
persons with disabilities should be considered as
D an act of non-obedience and Nodal Officer in
department/public sector undertakings/Government
companies, responsible for the proper strict
implementation of reservation for person with
disabilities, be departmentally proceeded against
E for the default.
55. Before parting with the case, we would like to place
on record appreciation for Mr. S.K Rungta, learned senior
counsel for rendering commendable assistance to the Court.
The appeal is disposed of with the above terms.
F
R.P. Appeal disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "disability reservation"Sign in to search