The court reinforced the entitlement of differently-abled individuals to promotional reservations under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, mandating compliance with court judgments granting retrospective promotions.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The respondents in O.A.No.1858 of 2024 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, (the ‘Tribunal’ for short) filed this original petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , challenging Ext.P5 order dated 18.11.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. Going by the averments in the original application, the respondent is presently working as Deputy Superintendent in the cadre of Assistant Director of Health Services in the Health Services Department. The next posts in the line of promotion to the respondent are those of Deputy Director and Additional Director. The respondent is a differently-abled person suffering from more than 40% Locomotor Disability. The Supreme Court has, in various decisions, held that persons with disabilities are entitled to be given reservations in the matter of promotions in the light of the provisions of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act , 2016, as well as the earlier Act of 1995. Although the respondent, as early as on 12.08.2022, had submitted Annexure A7 representation seeking the benefit of the above decisions, the same was rejected as per Annexure A8 Government Order dated 02.12.2022. But Annexure A8 Government Order was set aside by this Court in Annexure A9 judgment dated 09.08.2023 in O.P.(KAT) No.312 of 2023 and directed the petitioners to take all expeditious steps to ensure that the case of the respondent for regular promotion by lateral reservation, should be immediately placed before the DPC and if there is any undue delay in convening the DPC process then the 1^st petitioner will immediately consider the case of the respondent for temporary/provisional promotion in accordance with Rule 31(a)(i) of Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules (Part II). Annexure A9 judgment has attained finality through Annexures A14 order dated 23.02.2024 in SLP(C) No.7352 of 2024 and A15 order dated 18.07.2024 in Review Petition (C) No.1148 of 2024 in SLP(C) No.4869 of 2024 of the Supreme Court, and the petitioners are bound to comply with the directions contained therein in strict adherence to the observations of this Court. Also, there is no question of identification of posts since the same has been identified as suitable for accommodating persons with disabilities, which has been admitted in Annexure A8 Government Order and has been taken note of in Annexure A9 judgment. However, the 1^st petitioner issued Annexure A16 order dated 18.10.2024, rejecting the respondent’s claim for lateral reservation with regard to promotion, which is unsustainable and per se contumacious, being blatantly against the observations of this Court, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court and therefore is liable to be set aside.

2.1. In the original application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, the respondent-applicant sought the following reliefs:

“(i) To call for the records leading to Annexure A16 GO and quash the same being violative of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and Annexure A9 judgment of the Hon'ble High Court (ii) To direct the respondents to promote the applicant to the post of Deputy Director of Health Services with effect from 19.04.2017 and to consequentially promote him to the post of Additional Director with effect from 19.10.2017, with all consequential benefits (iii) To deciare that the applicant is entitled to be promoted to the post of Deputy Director of Health Services with effect from 19.04.2017 and to consequentially promote him to the post of Additional Director with effect from