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

2020 Supreme(MP) 320

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Ajay Kumar Mittal, Vijay Kumar Shukla, JJ.
Shivendra Singh Parihar And Others : Samant Singh Senger : Mahendra Kumar Kushwaha And Another : Kamlesh Patil : Diwakar Singh Tomar : Ravi Shankar Pathak : Babita Rathore : Maan Singh : Praveen Mantri : Dr. Mahendra Kumar Mishra : Anoop Kumar Singh And Another : Chandrabhan Makode : Arun Kumar Sinde : Krishna Kumar And Another : Prakash Kumar And Another : Ashok Kumar And Others : Bakeel Singh Kaushal : Dr. Swapnila Chouhan : Dinesh Kumar Sinha Shambhratna : Sheeba Azhar : Meenu Saket : Deepak Johnson : Teerath Jaiswal - Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 19393 of 2019 with Writ Petition No. 21652/2019, Writ Petition No. 21693/2019, Writ Petition No. 21695/2019, Writ Petition No. 23707/2019, Writ Petition No. 21134/2019, Writ Petition No. 23035/2019, Writ Petition No. 23118/2019, Writ Petition No. 20105/2019, Writ Petition No. 20549/2019, Writ Petition No. 21896/2019, Writ Petition No. 23358/2019, Writ Petition No. 25597/2019, Writ Petition No. 22800/2019, Writ Petition No. 22009/2019, Writ Petition No. 22023/2019, Writ Petition No. 25921/2019, Writ Petition No. 25923/2019, Writ Petition No. 25925/2019, Writ Petition No. 23052/2018, Writ Petition No. 29036/2019, Writ Petition No. 140 of 2020 and Writ Petition No. 940 of 2020
Decided On : 29-04-2020

Advocates Appeared:
Shri S.K. Rungta, Senior Advocate, Shri Naman Nagrath, Senior Advocate with Shri K.C. Ghildiyal, Shri Nitin Agrawal, Shri Swapnil Ganguli and Shri K.V. S. Sunil Rao, Shri Amit Seth, Shri K.S.Jha, Shri S.M. Guru, Shri Pawan Bansal, Shri Ashish Choubey, Shri Sailesh Tiwari, Shri Abhinav Shrivastava, Shri Shivam Mishra, Shri Aditya Khandekar, Shri Siddharth Sharma, Shri Gopi Chourasia, Shri Ashish Choubey, Shri Bramha Nand Pandey, Jubin Prasad, Shri B.P. Pathak, Shri Rahul Rawat and Shri Rajnish Sharma, Advocates, for the Appellants; Shri Shashank Shekhar, Advocate General with Shri Himanshu Mishra, Government Advocate, for the Respondent No.1/State; Shri Prashant Singh, Senior Advocate with Smt. Vineeta Sharma, and Shri Anshul Tiwari, Advocate, for the Respondent No.2

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the computation of reserved vacancies for persons with disabilities should be based on the sanctioned strength of the cadre and not just on the basis of vacancies notified, and the State is obligated to follow the statutory provisions and directives of the Supreme Court.

Headnote:

Reservation - Persons with Disabilities - Persons with Disabilities Act 1995, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 - Section 33, Section 36, Section 34

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenged a revised advertisement reducing vacancies for persons with disabilities for the post of Assistant Professor. The State failed to comply with the statutory provisions of reservation for persons with disabilities and reduced the vacancies for disabled persons in violation of the Acts.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the State's action was contrary to the statutory provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act 1995 and Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016. The computation of vacancies for persons with disabilities was erroneous and violated the directives of the Supreme Court.

Issues: The issues included the proper computation of reserved vacancies for persons with disabilities, the obligation of the State to follow the statutory provisions, and the violation of the directives of the Supreme Court.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the quota for persons with disabilities should be computed based on the sanctioned strength of the cadre and not just on the basis of vacancies notified. The State was directed to revise the quota and redraw the list of candidates for appointment in accordance with the law.

Final Decision: The writ petitions were disposed of with the direction for the State to revise the quota for persons with disabilities and proceed for appointment in accordance with the law.

JUDGMENT

Vijay Kumar Shukla, J. - The common issue is raised in this bunch of petitions, therefore, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts are noted from the W.P. No. 19393/2019 ( Shivendra Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of M.P. & Ors. ) . In these petitions a challenge is made to revised advertisement/corrigendum dated 19.08.2019 issued by the respondent no.2, M.P. Public Service Commission (for brevity, 'MPPSC'), whereby number of vacancies earlier advertised for the appointment of persons with disabilities for the post of Assistant Professor has been reduced.

2. The petitioners are persons suffering from blindness and they applied for selection to the post of Assistant Professors in respective subjects and also claimed the benefit of reservation granted to persons with disabilities under Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and full Participation) Act, 1995 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 1995'] and Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 [for short, 'the Act 2016'].

3. The Parliament enacted Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1995 which came into force from 1996. Section 33 of the said Act contained a scheme of reservation in jobs for persons with disabilities. According to which every appropriate Government was obliged to appoint not less than 3% vacancies in every establishment of which 1% each was to be reserved for persons with blindness and low vision, persons with hearing impairment and persons with locomotor disability and cerebral palsy respectively. The said statutory provision is reproduced hereinbelow:

    'Section 33: Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every establishment such percentage of not less than three percent, 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."

    It is also apt to refer Section 36 of the Act 1995 which is extracted hereunder :

    '36. Vacancies not filled up to be carried forward.-

    Where in any recruitment year any vacancy under section 33 cannot be filled up due to non-availability of a suitable person with disability or, for any other sufficient reason, such vacancy shall be carried forward in the succeeding recruitment year and if in the succeeding recruitment year also suitable person with disability is not available, it may first be filled by interchange among the three categories and only when there is no person with disability available for the post in that year, the employer shall fill up the vacancy by appointment of a person, other than a person with disability.

    Provided that if the nature of vacancies in an establishment is such that a given category of person cannot be employed, the vacancies may be interchanged among the three categories with the prior approval of the appropriate Government."

    4. The respondent No.1/State made a reservation to the extent of 6% for persons with disabilities in compliance of the said statutory provision which was being equally distributed to the extent of 2% each, in favour of persons with blindness and low vision, persons with hearing impairment, and persons with locomotor disability and cerebral palsy respectively.

    5. It is further submitted that the respondent State issued office memorandum bearing No.F8-2/96AAPR/AK dated 30.05.1997 providing for 6% reservation for persons with disabilities in the vacancies filled by direct recruitment falling in 2nd , 3rd and 4th category of posts. The office memorandum also provided distribut

                  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