SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SC) 1505

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, JJ.
Anand K.N. & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Biju Prabhakar & Ors. – Respondents
Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 678 of 2020 in C.A. No. 1567 of 2017
Decided On : 19-05-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Kuriakose Varghese, Advocate, Mr. Surya Prakash, Advocate, Mr. Akshat Gogna, Advocate, M/S. Kmnp Law, Advocate, Ms. Malini Poduval, Advocate, Ms. Babita Sant, Advocate, Ms. Rukhsana Choudhury, Advocate, Mr. Abhinav Ramkrishna, Advocate, Md. Naushad Alam, Advocate, Ms. Mithilesh Jaiswal, Advocate, Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, Advocate, Md. Apzal Ansari, Advocate, Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, Advocate, Mr. Ashish Yadav, Advocate, Mr. Rakshit Jain, Advocate, Mr. Vishal Bansal, Advocate, Mr. C. K. Sasi, Advocate, Mr. Abdullah Naseek, Advocate, Ms. Meena K.P., Advocate, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Ld ASG, Mr. O.P.Shukla, Advocate, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Advocate, Mr. Navanjay Mahapatra, Advocate, Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Rustam Singh Chauhan, Advocate, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocate, Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate, Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, Advocate, Mr. Dhruv Joshi Advocate, Mr. Manoj Joshi Advocate, Mr. Anand Singh Advocate, Mr. Prafful Saini Advocate, Mr. Nishant Gautam Advocate, Mr. B Purushottama Reddy Advocate, Lalitha Kaushik Advocate, Elaisha Asher Advocate, Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Rajn Mani, Advocate, Ms. Reetu Kumr, Advocate, Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Karun Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Wahengbam Immanvel Meitei, Advocate, for the Parties.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the enforcement of reservations for persons with disabilities in promotions, as mandated by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the Court's authority to issue directions and grant permission for applications related to contempt petitions.

Headnote:

Reservations - Persons with Disabilities - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Section 34 - Contempt Petitions

Fact of the Case:

The contempt petitions were filed due to the non-implementation of reservations for persons with disabilities in promotions to civil posts in the State of Kerala, despite repeated directions from the Court.

Finding of the Court:

The Court directed the State of Kerala to complete the process of identification and implement the directions given by the Court by promoting eligible candidates in the identified vacancies. The Union of India issued an Office Memorandum related to reservation in promotion to persons with benchmark disabilities, and objections to this memorandum will be heard after the summer vacations. The Court granted permission for an application and issued notice to the alleged contemnor(s).

Issues: Non-implementation of reservations for persons with disabilities in promotions, objections to the Office Memorandum related to reservation in promotion, and alleged contempt of court.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need for the State of Kerala to complete the process of identification and implement the directions for promoting eligible candidates in identified vacancies. The Court also allowed for objections to the Office Memorandum to be heard and granted permission for an application, issuing notice to the alleged contemnor(s).

Final Decision: The State of Kerala was directed to complete the process of identification and implement the directions given by the Court. The Union of India's Office Memorandum related to reservation in promotion will be further discussed after the summer vacations, and permission was granted for an application with notice issued to the alleged contemnor(s).

ORDER

ITEM 14

CONTEMPT.PETITION(C) No.678/2020 in C.A.No.1567/2017 and CONTEMPT PETITION(C) No. 680/2020 in C.A. No. 1567/2017

1. The complaint of the petitioners in these contempt petitions is that the reservations have not been provided for persons with disabilities in spite of repeated directions issued by this Court.

2. Taking note of the fact that the instructions have not been issued by the Government of India under the proviso to Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (Disabilities Act, 2016). By an Order dated 28.09.2021, this Court granted four months' time for issuing the instructions.

3. In these contempt petitions we are concerned with promotions to civil posts in the State of Kerala. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State informing this Court that the process of identification of posts is going on. It is stated in the affidavit that 380 posts have been identified for the purpose of providing reservation to persons with disabilities.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the computation of vacancies is not done in a proper manner and that the decision to be taken for providing reservations and the implementation of the orders passed by this Court brooks no further delay.

5. The State of Kerala is directed to complete the process of identification and implement the directions given by this Court by promoting the eligible candidates in the identified vacancies. The Status report may be filed by 2nd week of July, 2022.

CONMT.PET.(C) No. 686/2020 in C.A. No. 1567/2017

6. The Union of India, pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 28.09.2021, issued an Office Memorandum dated 17.05.2022 relating to the reservation in promotion to persons with benchmark disabilities. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they have certain objections to this memorandum. These objections shall be heard after the ensuing summer vacations, 2022.

7. The contention of the petitioner is that he has succeeded before this Court in spite of which he is not being considered for promotion to IAS. The reason for his non consideration to IAS by selection from non-SCS category is that Government of India has not taken a decision to implement reservations in promotion. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General, submits that she will obtain instructions on the issue pertaining to implementation of reservations for disabled persons under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.

8. An affidavit may be filed by the Union of India informing this Court about the decision taken for implementation of the directions issued by this Court.

Item 22

CONTEMPT PETITION (C) D. No.13262/2022 in C.A. No.1567/2017

9. Application for permission is granted.

10. Issue notice.

11. Personal appearance of the alleged contemnor(s) is dispensed with for the present.

12. List all the matters on 25.07.2022.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top