1. Employee with disability denied promotion to Group A post due to shortfall in qualifying marks — Claim for reservation in promotion and relaxation of standards. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 631
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.
Reserve Bank of India and Others – Appellants
Versus
A.K. Nair and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 529 of 2023
WITH
Union of India and Others – Appellants
Versus
A.K. Nair and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 530 of 2023
Decided On : 04-07-2023
Important Points
The Court ruled that reservation for persons with disabilities under the PwD Act, 1995, includes promotions to Group 'A' and 'B' posts. It further held that relaxed standards for qualifying examinations, similar to those for SC/ST candidates, should be extended to PwD candidates to ensure substantive equality.
Subject
Employment Law - Disability Rights
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.16(4)(a), Art.16, Art.16(4), Art.16(1), Art.141, Art.142
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES, PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND FULL PARTICIPATION ACT: S.32, S.33
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES, PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND FULL PARTICIPATION ACT: S.32, S.33
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 16 and 16(4-A) - Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - Promotion of employees with disabilities - Court directed RBI to grant notional promotion to Mr. Nair effective from 27th September, 2006 and actual promotion from 15th September, 2014 - Monetary benefits to be computed and released with due regard to effective promotion. (Paras 56, 57, 58)
(B) Employment - Reservation in promotions for persons with disabilities - Court reiterated that promotions should be considered under the same standards applied to SC/ST candidates and that prior judgments affirming reservations for persons with disabilities are binding. (Paras 41-46)
(C) History of Reservations - The judgment discussed the context of reservations in promotions historically, referencing Indra Sawhney and subsequent amendments, emphasizing the limitations of reservations under Article 16 until the introduction of Section 16(4-A). (Paras 2, 5-10)
Facts of the case:
Mr. Nair sought promotion to Assistant Manager post claiming relaxation in promotion criteria, citing the absence of any provisions for persons with disabilities in promotional posts in Group A. The High Court ruled in his favor, directing compliance with reservation policy.
Findings of Court:
Court affirmed the need to apply reservations for persons with disabilities in promotions while addressing prior torpedoes of legal interpretations which misapplied sections of the PwD Act, 1995.
Issues: The issues included whether the High Court was justified in granting promotions under the current law, the application of relaxed standards from SC/ST guidelines to Mr. Nair, and the retrospective effect of such promotions.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court reaffirmed prior rulings permitting reservations in promotions for persons with disabilities and indicated that RBI’s refusal to condone shortfall in marks was unjust, hence directing a notional and actual promotion to be sanctioned.
Result: Appeals disposed of as per directions granted.
(B) Employment - Reservation in promotions for persons with disabilities - Court reiterated that promotions should be considered under the same standards applied to SC/ST candidates and that prior judgments affirming reservations for persons with disabilities are binding. (Paras 41-46)
(C) History of Reservations - The judgment discussed the context of reservations in promotions historically, referencing Indra Sawhney and subsequent amendments, emphasizing the limitations of reservations under Article 16 until the introduction of Section 16(4-A). (Paras 2, 5-10)
Facts of the case:
Mr. Nair sought promotion to Assistant Manager post claiming relaxation in promotion criteria, citing the absence of any provisions for persons with disabilities in promotional posts in Group A. The High Court ruled in his favor, directing compliance with reservation policy.
Findings of Court:
Court affirmed the need to apply reservations for persons with disabilities in promotions while addressing prior torpedoes of legal interpretations which misapplied sections of the PwD Act, 1995.
Issues: The issues included whether the High Court was justified in granting promotions under the current law, the application of relaxed standards from SC/ST guidelines to Mr. Nair, and the retrospective effect of such promotions.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court reaffirmed prior rulings permitting reservations in promotions for persons with disabilities and indicated that RBI’s refusal to condone shortfall in marks was unjust, hence directing a notional and actual promotion to be sanctioned.
Result: Appeals disposed of as per directions granted.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. H. S. Parihar, AOR Mr. Kuldeep Singh Parihar, Adv. Ms. Ikshita Parihar, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Krishna Mohan K., AOR Ms. Dania Nayyar, Adv. Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, AOR Mr. H. S. Parihar, AOR Mr. Kuldeep Singh Parihar, Adv. Ms. Ikshita Parihar, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Madhvi Divan, A.S.G. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. Shashank Bajpai, Adv. Mr. Anish Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Diksha Rai, Adv. Mrs. Apoorv Kurup, Adv. Mr. Aakansha Kaul, Adv. Mrs. Vaishali Verma, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. H. S. Parihar, AOR Mr. Kuldeep Singh Parihar, Adv. Ms. Ikshita Parihar, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Krishna Mohan K., AOR Ms. Dania Nayyar, Adv. Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, AOR Mr. H. S. Parihar, AOR Mr. Kuldeep Singh Parihar, Adv. Ms. Ikshita Parihar, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Madhvi Divan, A.S.G. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. Shashank Bajpai, Adv. Mr. Anish Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Diksha Rai, Adv. Mrs. Apoorv Kurup, Adv. Mr. Aakansha Kaul, Adv. Mrs. Vaishali Verma, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Appellants contend reservation in promotion for disabled persons is limited to Group C and D posts — Respondent claims entitlement to Group A promotion and relaxed standards. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 )
3. Reservation for disabled persons is horizontal and distinct from vertical reservations — Section 33 of PwD Act, 1995 includes promotion as a mode of appointment. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 16 , 36 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 45 , 46 , 48 )
4. Statutory reservation for persons with disabilities in identified posts under PwD Act, 1995 extends to promotions in Group A and B posts including relaxed standards. (Para 16 , 36 , 42 , 45 )
5. Notional promotion granted from date of writ petition and actual promotion from date of High Court order compliance with corresponding monetary and retiral benefits. (Para 56 , 57 , 58 )
6. Does reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities apply to Group A and B posts?
Yes. The court held that reservation under Section 33 of the PwD Act, 1995 applies to all identified posts regardless of the mode of recruitment, including promotions to Group A and B posts. (Para 7 , 16 , 36 , 42 )
7. How does the rule against reservation in promotions for backward classes in Indra Sawhney apply to persons with disabilities?
It does not apply. The prohibition in Indra Sawhney pertains to vertical reservations for backward classes under Article 16(4), whereas PwD reservation is horizontal and based on physical disability under Article 16(1). (Para 7 , 11 , 36 )
8. Does the term appointment in Section 33 of the PwD Act, 1995 include promotion?
Yes. The court clarified that the term appointment is broad and encompasses both direct recruitment and appointment by way of promotion. (Para 16 )
9. Are persons with disabilities entitled to relaxed standards in promotional examinations?
Yes. To ensure equal opportunity and substantive equality, the court held that relaxed standards of assessment available to SC/ST candidates should be extended to persons with disabilities. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 )
ORDER :
In view of the conclusions recorded by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta (concurred to by Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.R. Bhat) the appeal is disposed of in terms of the following directions:
“We direct RBI to grant notional promotion to Mr. Nair on the post of Assistant Manager Grade ‘A’ to be effective from the date of presentation of the writ petition before the High Court, i.e. 27th September, 2006 and actual promotion from 15th September, 2014, i.e. the last date for compliance of the order of the High Court. This exercise must be completed within a period of 2 (two) months from date. The monetary benefits accruing to Mr. Nair with effect from 15th September, 2014 shall be computed and released by 4 (four) months from date.
Since Mr. Nair has a couple of years for his retirement on superannuation, it is needless to observe that in computing his retiral benefits due regard shall be given to his promotion, as directed above, with effect from 27th September, 2006.
The appeals stand disposed of on the above terms. Parties shall bear their own costs.”
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. I have had the benefit of reading the detailed and elaborate reasoning of my learned brother judge, Dipankar Datta, J. While I concur with the conclusions and relief granted to the appellant, I wish to record a few observations, by way of abundant caution, on the larger question of reservations in promotions for any class of citizens other than those covered by Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution.
(I) HISTORY OF RESERVATIONS IN PROMOTIONS
2. The question of reservations in promotions has a chequered history. In General Manager, S. Rly. vs. Rangachari , (1962) 2 SCR 586 a constitution bench in a 3:2 decision held that reservations in promotions were permissible. They were not merely restricted to initial appointments, but also selected posts subsequently.1 [Id. Para 27] This was a decision rendered during the era when this court’s understanding of Articles 15(4) and 16(4) was that such provisions were exceptions to the rule under Articles 15(1) and 16(1). However, this interpretation underwent a change [The dissenting opinion of Subba Rao, J. in T. Devadasan vs. Union of India , (1964) 4 SCR 680 was affirmed in State of Kerala vs. N.M. Thomas , (1976) 2 SCC 310], as elucidated in State of Kerala vs. N.M. Thomas , (1976) 2 SCC 310, wherein K.K. Mathew, J. opined:
“If equality of opportunity guaranteed under Article 16 (1) means effective material equality, then Article 16 (4) is not an exception to Article 16 (1). It is only an emphatic way of putting the extent to which equality of opportunity could be carried viz. even up to the point of making reservation.”2 [Ibid. Para 78] In Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India , 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217 a nine-judge constitution bench, equipped with this interpretation, revisited the question of reservations in promotions. Question No. 7 was unambiguously cast: “Whether Article 16 permits reservations being provided in the matter of promotions?” Eight out of nine justices considered the issue, and held that the view expressed in Rangachari (supra) was erroneous, and that reservations in promotions were impermissible under Article 16.”
3. The observations made by different judges in their opinions are extracted below:
(a) Per Kania, Venkatachalaiah and B.P. Jeevan Reddy, JJ:
“828. We see no justification to multiply ‘the risk’ which would be the consequence of holding that reservation can be provided even in the matter of promotion. While it is certainly just to say that a handicap should be given to backward class of citizens at the stage of initial appointment, it would be a serious and unacceptable inroad into the rule of equality of opportunity to say that such a handicap should be provided at every stage of promotion throughout their career. That would mean creation of a permanent separate category apart from the mainstream - a vertical division of the administrative apparatus. The members of reserved categories need n
