Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2013 Supreme(SC) 965

P. SATHASIVAM, RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, RANJAN GOGOI
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
National Federation of the Blind – Respondent

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The judgment holds that reservation under Section 33 is to be computed on the basis of total vacancies in the cadre strength (not only identified posts) for Group A–D posts. (!) (!) (!) - The identification of posts under Section 32 is not a precondition for computation of 3% reservation under Section 33; identification is relevant for appointment, not computation. (!) (!) (!) - The Court directs the Government to modify OM 29.12.2005 and issue new consistent instructions, identify vacancies and posts for disabled persons, and ensure implementation with time-bound directions. (!) (!) (!)

What is the proper basis for computing 3% reservation for persons with disabilities under Section 33: total cadre strength or total vacancies in identified posts?

What is the legal status of identifying posts under Section 32 in relation to implementing Section 33 reservations?

What are the directives issued by the Court to ensure proper implementation of the reservation for persons with disabilities?

JUDGMENT

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 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:

(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 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 and low vision persons and they are virtually excluded from the process of recruitment to the Government posts as stipulated under the said Act.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 Supreme(SC) 965

P. SATHASIVAM, RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, RANJAN GOGOIUnion of India – AppellantVersusNational Federation of the Blind – Respondent

What is the proper basis for computing 3% reservation for persons with disabilities under Section 33: total cadre strength or total vacancies in identified posts?

What is the legal status of identifying posts under Section 32 in relation to implementing Section 33 reservations?

What are the directives issued by the Court to ensure proper implementation of the reservation for persons with disabilities?

Cases Referred (4)

P. SATHASIVAM, RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, RANJAN GOGOI
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
National Federation of the Blind – Respondent