Point of Law: Reservation mandated under Section 33 of Act will necessarily mean to provide employment, which has permanency attached to it and that can only be by way of regular appointment.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

Since all these petitions involve identical questions of facts and law, therefore, these are being decided by a common judgment.

2. Petitioners in CWP Nos. 5090 of 2022, 5278 of 2022 and 5124 of 2022 were appointed as Trained Graduate Teachers in the Department of Elementary Education, in the year 2010, under the 3% quota for disabled persons. Petitioners in CWP Nos. 5122 of 2022 and 5276 of 2022, were appointed as Peons (Class-IV) in Health and Family Welfare Department, in the year 2008, under the 3% quota for disabled persons.

3. The petitioners were appointed on contract basis. By way of instant petitions, they are seeking the relief that they be considered on regular basis from the date of their initial appointments.

4. The aforesaid claim of petitioners has been denied to them by the respondents, primarily on the ground that the Recruitment and Promotion Rules in vogue for the respective posts of petitioners, at the time of their respective appointments, provide for two modes of appointments, one by appointment on contract basis and other on regular basis. Since, the initial appointments of petitioners was in accordance with the relevant Recruitment and Promotion Rules and as such they cannot be granted the status of regular employee from the date of their initial appointments. It is also the case of the respondents that no exception can be carved in favour of the petitioners only because they have been recruited under 3% quota for disabled persons.

5. I have heard Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, learned Senior Advocate, for the petitioner and Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, Additional Advocate General for the respondents and have also gone through the record carefully.

6. The question that arise for determination in all these petitions is whether the appointments of persons with disability, on contract basis, can be said to be in consonance with the persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995?

7. The above noted question has already been decided in negative by this Court vide judgment dated 22.08.2022 passed in CWPOA No. 1066 of 2019, titled as Nitin Kumar vs. State & Anr. After discussing the relevant aspect on the issue, this Court has held as under:-

“9. The 1995 Act has been enacted with most laudable object to provide equal opportunities to the persons with disabilities. Section 32 of the Act provides for identification of posts, which can be reserved for persons with disabilities whereas, Section 33 provide for reservation of such posts, which reads as under:-

“33. Reservation of posts.—Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less than three per cent for persons or class of persons with disability of which one per cent each shall be reserved for persons suffering from—

(i) blindness or low vision;

(ii) hearing impairment;

(iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy, in the posts identified for each disability:

Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any department or establishment, by notification subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section.”

10. Thus, there is a clear mandate of law to every appropriate government to appoint in every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less than 3% for persons or class of persons with disability of which 1% each is mandatorily required to be reserved for persons suffering from hearing impairment, blindness and locomotor disability or cerebral palsy.

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India vs. National Federation of the Blinds & others, 2013 (10) SCC 772 interpreted the purpose of 1995 Act as under:-

“24) Although, the Disability Rights Movement in India commenced way back in 1977, of which Respondent No. 1 herein was an active participant, it acquired the requisite sanction only at the launch of th