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

2024 Supreme(Gau) 1379

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KARDAK ETE, J.
Dul Malla Buzar Baruah S/o. Lt. Bidya Malla Buzar Baruah – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And 6 Ors. – Respondent
WP(c) 3299 of 2020
Decided on : 05-11-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MS D BORGOHAIN, MS. M SARMAH,MR. P GOHAIN
For the Respondent: SC, P W D, SC, PERSONNEL DEPT.,SC, APSC,GA, ASSAM

IMPORTANT POINT
Persons with disabilities are entitled to promotion under the Disabilities Act, 2016, and must be considered for such promotions as per the law.

Headnote:

(A) Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Section 34 - Reservation in promotion - Petitioners, being persons with disabilities, sought promotion to Assistant Engineer (Civil) under 4% quota - Office Memorandum dated 17.01.2019 limited reservation to Grade-III and IV posts - Court held that petitioners are entitled to promotion under the Disabilities Act, 2016, as the respondent authorities failed to adhere to the mandate of law. (Paras 8, 12, 32, 34)

(B) Promotion - Right to be considered - Court emphasized that while no employee has a right to promotion, they have a right to be considered for promotion under applicable laws. (Paras 17, 32)

Facts of the case:

Petitioners, appointed as Junior Engineers, are persons with disabilities and sought promotion to Assistant Engineer (Civil) under the Disabilities Act, 2016. They were promoted without consideration of the disabled quota. (Paras 4, 6, 12)

Findings of Court:

Petitioners are entitled to be considered for promotion under the benchmark disabilities quota as the authorities failed to adhere to the law. (Paras 32, 34)

Issues: Whether petitioners are entitled to promotion under the Disabilities Act, 2016. (Paras 12, 32)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioners must be considered for promotion under the Disabilities Act, 2016, as the authorities did not comply with the law. (Paras 32, 34)

Result: Writ petitions allowed to the extent indicated. (Para 35)

JUDGMENT :

Heard Ms. D. Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate for the State of Assam and Ms. P.P. Das, learned counsel appearing for the APSC.

2. Having considered that the issue involved in both writ petitions is analogous, same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

3. By filing these two writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to modify the O.M. dated 17.01.2019 so as to provide reservation in promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) under Public Works Department, Government of Assam. The petitioners have also prayed for a direction to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) against the 4% quota reserved for Persons With Disabilities (hereinafter PwD in short) as provided under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, (hereinafter referred to as the Disabilities Act, 2016 in short).

4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) under the Assam Public Works Department, who are PwDs. In WP(C) 3299/2020, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) under Assam Public Works Department, NH under Rangia Division on 03.10.1996. The petitioner suffers from Locomotor disability since 2014 and after re-examination of his disability, the Disability Certificate has been issued being registration No. 5088 dated 15.11.2017 to that effect and he has been receiving disability allowance since 19.08.2017.

5. In WP(C) 3317/2020, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) under Assam Public Works Department, Building on 21.11.1990. He became physical disabled in the year, 2016, which has been diagnosed as Spastic Left Hemiparesis and is a Locomotor Disability as per the provision contained in the rights of persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The petitioner has been issued a Disability Certificate being Certificate No. 1399 dated 16.08.2016. In course of their services, the petitioners in the meantime have become eligible to be promoted to the cadre of Assistant Engineer (Civil) and by now, have been promoted on their own merit and positions in the Department.

6. It is contended by the petitioners that under the Disabilities Act of 2016, the petitioners are entitled to a preferential treatment of reservation under the 4% reservation in terms of the provisions of the Disabilities Act, 2016.

7. It is the contention of the petitioners that office memorandum dated 07.01.2019 issued by the Department of Personnel (B), Government of Assam, inter alia, provides that the benefit of reservation in promotion for persons with benchmark disabilities will be limited to the Grade-III and IV posts, where 4% of the posts shall be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities. Since the benefit of reservation in promotion for persons with benchmark disabilities will be limited to the Grade-III and IV posts only, the petitioner would be disentitled to a reservation in promotion to the cadre of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the PWRD as because the cadre of Assistant Engineer (Civil) is Grade-II.

8. It is contended that as per the provision contained in Section-34 of the Disabilities Act, 2016, every appropriate Government shall appoint in every Government establishment not less than 4% of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength in each group of posts meant to be filled up with persons with benchmark disabilities of which 1% each shall be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities. The petitioner claims for implementation of the benefit of the Disabilities Act, 2016 and also relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Kumar Gupta and others -Vs-The Union of India and Others reported in (2016) 13 SCC 153. The petitioners have submitted a representation before the respondent authorities praying for consideration of th

      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