Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hemant Gupta, Vikram Nath, JJ.
Ajay Kumar Pandey & Ors. – Appellants
VERSUS
State of U.P. & ORS. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4811 of 2022 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 18854 of 2019)
Decided On : 01-08-2022
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 – Sections 32 and 33 – G.O. dated 7.5.1999 – Selection to post of Safai-Karmis – Appellants are persons with locomotor disability – 3% reservation is to be in an establishment and not in all cadres of an establishment irrespective of nature of job – State Government has taken a conscious decision to reserve certain posts for hearing impaired candidates and not for candidates with locomotor disability – Identification of posts and category of disabled candidates who could be appointed against posts reserved is power conferred on appropriate Government – Such exercise and reservation of posts could not have been interfered with without holding such reservation to be totally arbitrary, irrational or against objectives sought to be achieved and on judicially recognised principles – Order of High Court striking G.O. as a whole is on the basis of surmises and conjectures, cannot be sustained in law – Since posts of Safai-Karmis are not identified to be filled up from amongst candidates having locomotor disability, appellant could not be appointed against such category of post, even though they have appeared for cycling test or for interview – Appellants were not eligible for appointment against such posts in terms of advertisement – Order of High Court striking aside G.O. dated 7.5.1999 set aside. (Paras 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19)
Facts of the case:
Challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 15.2.2019 whereby though Government Order1 dated 7.5.1999 was struck down, but selection to post of Safai-Karmis made in pursuance of the advertisement dated 16.6.2008 was not interfered with.
Findings of Court:
G.O. dated 07.05.1999 could not be set aside in exercise of the power of judicial review on the basis of cursory glance of the G.O. dated 07.05.1999. The identification of the posts which can be filled up by candidates suffering from disabilities is responsibility of the appropriate Government under Section 32 of Act, which is the State Government in the present case.
Result : Appeal disposed of.
JUDGMENT
Hemant Gupta, J.
1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 15.2.2019 whereby though the Government Order1[For short, the ‘G.O.’], dated 7.5.1999 was struck down, but selection to the post of Safai-Karmis made in pursuance of the advertisement dated 16.6.2008 was not interfered with.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal are that an advertisement was published on 16.6.2008 inviting applications for 1651 posts of safaikarmis in District Mau, out of which 346 posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste, 34 for Scheduled Tribe and 445 for Other Backward Class. It further stated that reservation would also be in respect of the advertised posts to women, disabled candidates, freedom fighters and ex-servicemen as per government decisions, though the number of such reserved posts has not been specified.
3. The appellants have mentioned in the writ petition filed, the record of which was called from the High Court, that there were 50 posts reserved for disabled candidates. However, such 50 posts were said to be on the basis of 3% of the total posts advertised and not as per the reservation policy of appointment of the disabled candidates in the State.
4. In respect of disabled candidates, the State Government had circulated a G.O. dated 07.05.1999 identifying the posts which can be manned by such suitable disabled candidates under Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 19952[For short, the ‘Act’]. For the present appeal, relevant clauses of the G.O. pertaining to Group D posts are reproduced hereunder:
“3. In this regard, the government has identified the posts of Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ for the purpose of ensuring reservation in public services under Section 32 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and in the context of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and ex-military officials) (Amendment) Act, 1997 promulgated by the Department of Personnel. List of identified posts is enclosed herewith.
4. I am directed to state that appointment should be made to the identified posts under the posts reserved for these classes. In the event of non-filing of the vacancy due to non-availability of suitable candidates, it shall be carried over to the next recruitment.
xx xx xx
| GROUND ‘D’ IDENTIFICATION OF JOBS FOR PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED | |||
| 1. | Daftry, Attendant | S W S E | OA OL PD |
| 2. | Peon, Office Boy | S W S E | OA OL PD |
| 3. | Dusting Man Farash | S W S E | OA OL D PD PB |
| 4. | Process Server | S W S E | OA D PD |
| 5. | Unskilled Office worker | S W S E | PD OA OL OA |
| 6. | Duplicating Machine Operator, Cyclostyle Machine Operator | S W S E | D PD OL OA |
| 7. | Sweeper Dry | ST S W KC SE F P PL | PD D |
| 8. | Sweeper Wet | -do- | -do- |
| 9. | Sweeper, Sewer | -do- | -do- |
| 10. | Sweeper Cleaner & Related Workers, Ors. | -do- | -do- |
| 11. | Water Carrier | -do- | -do- |
| 12. | Dhobi | ST S KC SE PP L F | PD D |
| 13. | Stencillar | SE S F B | OA BL OL PD D |
| 14. | Stamper Hand | SE S F B | -do- |
xx xx xx
APPENDIX A
PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS
| Code | Function |
| F | 1. Work performed by manipulating (with fingers) |
| PP | 2. Work performed by pulling and pushing |
| L | 3. Work performed by lifting |
| KC | 4. Work performed by knelling and crouching |
| B | 5. Work performed by bending |
| S | 6. Work performed by siting (on bench or chair) |
| ST | 7. Work performed by standing |
| W | 8. Work performed by walking |
| SE | 9. Work performed by seeing |
| H | 10. Work performed by hearing/speaking |
APPENDIX B
| Code | Function |
| BL | (i) Both legs affected but not arms |
| BA | (ii) Both arms affected |
| (a) impa | |
Disability – 3% reservation is to be in an establishment and not in all cadres of an establishment irrespective of nature of job.
Identification of posts for disabled persons under Section 32 governs reservation of vacancies. No error found in refusal to appoint petitioner due to lack of appropriate post identification for loco....
Reservation under the Persons with Disabilities Act is constitutionally mandated and cannot be denied due to post identification lapses; violations warrant legal remedy.
Eligibility for appointment in reserved categories depends on the specific nature of disability as defined by law, not merely on the candidate's performance.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, regarding the reservation of posts for physically c....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the reservation provisions for physically challenged persons should be interpreted in conjunction with the government orders in force at the t....
Persons with benchmark disabilities entitled to 4% reservation in promotion to identified posts irrespective of mode, notionally from 30.06.2016 subject to eligibility via review committee; supernume....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
