1. Application for clarification of a judgment regarding reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 1221
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai, JJ.
Siddaraju - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Karnataka & Ors. - Respondent
Miscellaneous Application No. 2171 of 2020 In Civil Appeal No. 1567 of 2017 With Conmt. Pet. (C) No. 680 Of 2020 in C.A. No. 1567 Of 2017, Conmt. Pet. (C) No. 282 Of 2021 in C.A. No. 1567 Of 2017, C.A. No. 7147 Of 2019, Conmt. Pet. (C) No. 678 Of 2020 in C.A. No. 1567 Of 2017, Conmt. Pet. (C) No. 679 Of 2020 in C.A. No. 1567 Of 2017, Conmt. Pet. (C) No. 686 Of 2020 in C.A. No. 1567 Of 2017
Decided On : 28-09-2021
Important Points
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that persons with disabilities are entitled to reservation in promotions. Finding no ambiguity in its previous rulings, the Court directed the Union of India to issue necessary instructions for implementation as per Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Subject
Administrative Law - Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Reservation in promotions for persons with disabilities - The Union of India sought clarification on the applicability of previous judgments regarding promotion reservations, with the court affirming the binding nature of earlier decisions. The court concluded that there is no ambiguity necessitating clarification, and directed that instructions on reservation in promotion be issued consistent with applicable law. (Paras 1-6)
(B) Judicial Precedents - The Union and State Governments are bound by previous judgments which established rights for persons with disabilities in promotions, rejecting the Union's request for reconsideration of these judgments. (Paras 1, 5)
(B) Judicial Precedents - The Union and State Governments are bound by previous judgments which established rights for persons with disabilities in promotions, rejecting the Union's request for reconsideration of these judgments. (Paras 1, 5)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Malini Poduval, AOR Ms. Babita Sant, Adv. Mrs. Madhvi Divan, Ld. ASG Mr. Rajan Kr. Chourasia, Adv. Ms. Vaishali Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sanjai Kumar Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Prashant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Adv. Mr. Kuriakose Varghese, Adv. Mr. V. Shyamohan, Adv. Mr. Surya Prakash, Adv. Mr. Sudeep Aravind Panicker, Adv. Ms. Sohini Chowdhury, Adv. M/S. Kmnp Law Aor, AOR Ms. Jayna Kothari, Sr.Adv. Ms. Rukhsana Choudhury, AOR Mr. Abhinav Ramkrishna, AOR
For the Respondents: Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Md.Apzal Ansari, Adv. Mrinal Gopal Elker, AOR Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, AOR Mr. G. Prakash, AOR Ms. Priyanka Prakash, Adv. Ms. Beena Prakash, adv. Mr. Sudarshan Rajan, AOR Mr. Vardhman Kaushik , AOR Mr. R.C. Mishra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ilin Saraswat, Adv. Mr. Ananya Mishra, Adv. Mr. Mahendra Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rajnish Kumar Jha, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Dr. (Mrs. ) Vipin Gupta, AOR Mr. Shashank Singh, AOR Mr. Rajan Mani, Adv. Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Ms. Ritu Kumar, Adv. Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv.
For the Appellant : Ms. Malini Poduval, AOR Ms. Babita Sant, Adv. Mrs. Madhvi Divan, Ld. ASG Mr. Rajan Kr. Chourasia, Adv. Ms. Vaishali Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sanjai Kumar Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Prashant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Adv. Mr. Kuriakose Varghese, Adv. Mr. V. Shyamohan, Adv. Mr. Surya Prakash, Adv. Mr. Sudeep Aravind Panicker, Adv. Ms. Sohini Chowdhury, Adv. M/S. Kmnp Law Aor, AOR Ms. Jayna Kothari, Sr.Adv. Ms. Rukhsana Choudhury, AOR Mr. Abhinav Ramkrishna, AOR
For the Respondents: Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Md.Apzal Ansari, Adv. Mrinal Gopal Elker, AOR Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, AOR Mr. G. Prakash, AOR Ms. Priyanka Prakash, Adv. Ms. Beena Prakash, adv. Mr. Sudarshan Rajan, AOR Mr. Vardhman Kaushik , AOR Mr. R.C. Mishra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ilin Saraswat, Adv. Mr. Ananya Mishra, Adv. Mr. Mahendra Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rajnish Kumar Jha, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Dr. (Mrs. ) Vipin Gupta, AOR Mr. Shashank Singh, AOR Mr. Rajan Mani, Adv. Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Ms. Ritu Kumar, Adv. Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Union sought clarification on vacancy computation, induction, promotion levels, and applicable legislation; opposing counsel argued no ambiguity exists and implementation is being stalled. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
3. The court found no ambiguity in the previous judgments that would warrant further clarification. (Para 5 )
4. Judgments establishing reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities are clear and binding, requiring implementation via government instructions under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. (Para 1 , 5 )
5. Application for clarification dismissed; government directed to issue reservation in promotion instructions under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 within four months. (Para 5 , 6 )
6. Are government entities bound by judgments granting reservation in promotion to persons with disabilities?
Yes, the Union and State Governments are bound by the judgments of the Court establishing that persons with disabilities are entitled to reservation in promotions. (Para 1 )
7. Is further clarification required for the implementation of reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities?
No, the court held that there is no ambiguity in the judgments regarding reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities that warrants any further clarification. (Para 5 )
8. How should reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities be legally implemented by the government?
Reservation in promotion must be implemented through instructions issued by the appropriate government as provided under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. (Para 5 )
ORDER :
Miscellaneous Application No. 2171 of 2020 In Civil Appeal No. 1567 of 2017
1. The correctness of the judgment of this Court in Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. , (2016) 13 SCC 153 was raised by Union of India before a Division Bench of this Court. In Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (supra), this Court held that persons with disabilities are entitled for reservation in promotions. The matter was referred to a larger Bench for considering the issues raised by the Union of India. After a detailed consideration of the judgments of this Court in Union of India & Anr. v. National Federation of the Blind & Ors. , (2013) 10 SCC 772 , National Federation of the Blind v. Sanjay Kothari, Secretary Department of Personnel and Training , (2015) 9 SCALE 611 and Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (supra), this Court answered the reference on 14.01.2020. The submission on behalf of the Union of India that Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (supra) warrants reconsideration was rejected. This Court held that the Union and the State Governments are bound by the judgments of this Court in Union of India & Anr. v. National Federation of the Blind & Ors. (supra), National Federation of the Blind v. Sanjay Kothari, Secretary Department of Personnel and Training (supra) and Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (supra).
2. This Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Union of India for clarification of the judgment dated 14.01.2020. Notice was issued on 12.01.2021 and the Union of India was directed to submit a written note identifying the points on which clarification was sought. Pursuant to the said direction, a written note was filed by Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned Additional Solicitor General seeking clarification on the following four issues:
a. whether the vacancies for promotion for PwDs would be computed only on the basis of the vacancies against the identified posts or against the vacancies in both identified and non-identified posts.
b. whether reservation can be given to PwDs at the time of induction from SCS/Non-SCS to IAS.
c. whether the intention of the judgment is to grant reservation in promotion beyond the lowest rung of GroupA or up to the lowest rung of Group-A.
d. whether the judgment dated 14.01.2020 in Civil Appeal No.1567 of 2017, titled Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka & Ors. along with its tagged cases needs to be implemented on the basis of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, (based on which the case was filed) or the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (the latest Act applicable on the date of judgment).
3. It was submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General that reservation in promotion shall be in accordance with such instructions that are issued by the appropriate Government from time to time as provided in Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. As implementation of the three judgments mentioned above has given rise to some doubts, it is necessary that the points raised by the Union of India be answered and clarification be given to enable the Union of India to proceed with issuing instructions.
4. Ms. Jayna Kothari, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Rajan Mani, learned counsel opposed the submissions made by the learned Additional Solicitor General by contending that there is no necessity for any clarification of the judgments of this Court referred to above. They have raised a grievance that the delay in issuing the instructions under the proviso to Section 34 resulted in stalling the implementation of reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities.
5. Having examined the judgments of this Court and the submissions made on behalf of the parties, we are of the opinion that there is no ambiguity in the judgments which warrants any clarification. The Union of India is directed to issue instructions regarding re
