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

2025 Supreme(Ker) 2070

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R.RAVI, J.
Samajam Higher Secondary School - Appellant 
Versus 
State Of Kerala - Respondent 
WP(C) Nos.36659 of 2022, 12462 of 2023, 13312 of 2023, 14576 of 2023, 14593 of 2023, 14620 of 2023, 14799 of 2023, 14835 of 2023, 15230 of 2023, 15484 of 2023, 15522 of 2023, 16067 of 2023, 16366 of 2023, 16743 of 2023, 16903 of 2023, 17045 of 2023, 17049 of 2023, 17061 of 2023, 17072 of 2023, 17074 of 2023, 17092 of 2023, 17156 of 2023, 17160 of 2023, 17166 of 2023, 17170 of 2023, 17293 of 2023, 17351 of 2023, 17945 of 2023, 18289 of 2023, 18304 of 2023, 18349 of 2023, 18605 of 2023, 19847 of 2023, 19908 of 2023, 19925 of 2023, 19936 of 2023, 19938 of 2023, 20022 of 2023, 20093 of 2023, 20094 of 2023, 20373 of 2023, 20580 of 2023, 20672 of 2023, 20783 of 2023, 20793 of 2023, 20825 of 2023, 20861 of 2023, 21075 of 2023, 21138 of 2023, 21164 of 2023, 21557 of 2023, 21597 of 2023, 21978 of 2023, 22083 of 2023, 22178 of 2023, 22196 of 2023, 22231 of 2023, 22260 of 2023, 22286 of 2023, 22344 of 2023, 22353 of 2023, 22362 of 2023, 22368 of 2023, 22385 of 2023, 22936 of 2023, 22977 of 2023, 22990 of 2023, 23033 of 2023, 23043 of 2023, 23072 of 2023, 23081 of 2023, 23126 of 2023, 23248 of 2023, 23404 of 2023, 23460 of 2023, 23726 of 2023, 24780 of 2023, 24953 of 2023, 25356 of 2023, 25650 of 2023, 25776 of 2023, 26064 of 2023, 26660 of 2023, 27673 of 2023, 27715 of 2023, 27890 of 2023, 28042 of 2023, 28056 of 2023, 28432 of 2023, 28786 of 2023, 29111 of 2023, 29858 of 2023, 30230 of 2023, 30489 of 2023, 31088 of 2023, 31453 of 2023, 32062 of 2023, 32973 of 2023, 33955 of 2023, 2993 of 2024, 34796 of 2023, 34902 of 2023, 35281 of 2023, 36006 of 2023, 36287 of 2023, 36428 of 2023, 38522 of 2023, 38532 of 2023, 38987 of 2023, 42960 of 2022
Decided on : 02-05-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRI M.R.ANISON, SMT.P.A.RINUSA, SMT. V.BHARGAVI (PANANGAD), SMT.A.MEENAKSHI, SMT.V.P.SEEMANDINI (SR.)(K/392/1976)
For the Respondent: A.P.JAYARAJ (ANJILIKKAL), P.K.NANDINI, JUBYRAJ.A.P, JISHAMOL CLEETUS, SHRI P.SANTHOSH KUMAR, SPL.GOVT.PLEADER

The judgment affirms the mandatory reservation for persons with disabilities in aided schools, emphasizing compliance with legislative provisions and the management's responsibilities.

Headnote:(A) Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - Sections 32 and 33 - Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Sections 33 and 34 - Implementation of reservation for persons with disabilities in aided schools - Necessity recognized for ensuring compliance with legislative provisions mandating a minimum percentage of vacancies reserved for disabled persons in educational institutions. The court emphasized that educational authorities must ensure adherence to provisions of the Acts, with specific directions issued for the identification of vacancies and the filling of backlog appointments. (Paras 2-50).

(B) Reservation - The court affirmed the legality of reserving a specified percentage of posts for persons with disabilities, reinforcing that failure in implementation by assisted school managements mandates adherence to statutory obligations, alongside regular periodic reviews of vacancies. (Paras 8-50).

Facts of the case:
This case involves multiple writ petitions addressing issues regarding the effective implementation of legislative provisions related to reservation for persons with disabilities in aided educational institutions in Kerala, dating back to 1996 with legislative updates in 2016, reflecting an ongoing struggle between statutory obligations and the management of these schools. (Paras 1-11).

Findings of Court:
The decision reiterates judicial principles that emphasize the obligation of aided schools to implement statutory reservations proactively and ensures proper channels for hiring qualified disabled candidates. The court outlined directives for the approval of pending appointments while safeguarding teachers' rights. (Paras 50).

Issues: The central issues included the validity of government orders concerning the reservation percentage for disabled persons, whether schools should be treated as singular units for calculation, the legality of notification requirements for filling vacancies, and the classification of posts in aided schools. (Paras 17-50).

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that statutory provisions must be implemented without delay, stressing the necessity for educational entities to adhere to rules concerning the appointment of disabled individuals, reaffirming that the first vacancy in specified blocks shall remain reserved for them, while overall taking into account past failures of school managements to comply. (Paras 5-50).

Result: Writ petitions disposed of affirming the legality of existing government orders and emphasizing the effective implementation of statutory reservations in aided schools. (Para 50).

Table of Content
1. implementation of disability reservation laws. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. challenge to the government's order on disability reservations. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. common judgment on disability related petitions. (Para 7 , 8)
4. supreme court orders compliance for appointments. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
5. proposal for expedited appointment process. (Para 12 , 13)
6. current status of petition appeals. (Para 14 , 15)
7. arguments on reservation implementation. (Para 17)
8. validity of government orders on reservations. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
9. court's findings on statutory provisions. (Para 23 , 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT :
T.R.RAVI, J.

All these writ petitions relate to the various issues regarding the implementation of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1995 Act') and the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2016 Act') in Aided Schools in the State of Kerala. The writ petitions are hence heard and disposed of by a common judgment.

The Premise :
2. The 1995 Act came into force on 07.02.1996. Section 33 of the 1995 Act mandates that “every appropriate Government shall appoint in every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less than 3% for persons or class of persons of which 1% each shall be reserved for persons suffering from (i) Blindness/low vision (ii) Hearing impairment (iii) Locomotor disability or cerebral palsy. Though the Section is not happily worded, the clear intention is that not less than 3% of the vacancies in every establishment shall be reserved for persons with disability. As is usual with every such legislation with a large social intent, the implementation of the provisions was decelerated. Twenty-one years later, the Parliament replaced the 1995 Act with the 2016 Act, which came into force on 19.04.2017. Section 34 of the 2016 Act, mandated that 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 with persons with benchmark disabilities of which, one percent each shall be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (a), (b) and (c) and one percent for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (d) and (e). Thus, the percentage of reservations was increased, and more categories of disabled persons were included for reservations. “Hearing impairment” was replaced with “deaf and hard of hearing”, in the categories of “locomotor disability” the categories of leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims, and muscular dystrophy have been included and in addition, persons with autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability, mental illness and persons with multiple disabilities under the above- mentioned categories including deaf-blindness have been made eligible for reservation.

3. Sections 33 and 34 of the 2016 Act also deal with the identification of posts for reservation and the reservation of posts. As per the 2016 Act, the appropriate Government is (i) to identify posts in the establishments which can be held by respective category of persons with benchmark disabilities in respect of the vacancies reserved under the provisions of Section 34 , (ii) to constitute an expert committee with representation of persons with benchmark disabilities for identification of such posts and (iii) to undertake periodic review of the identified posts at an interval not exceeding three years.

4. Two years after the 2016 Act came into force, the Social Justice Department in the Government of Kerala issued G.O. (P)No.18/2018/SJD on 18.11.2018, extending the provisions of the 1995 Act and the 2016 Act to all Government-aided educational institutions with effect from 07.02.1996 and directing the concerned Administrative Departments, to instruct the appointing authorities of aided institutions to ensure that the reservatio


























































































































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