Reservation In Promotion For PwBDs Can't Be Limited To Posts Filled By Both Direct Recruitment & Promotion: Kerala High Court - 2025-10-08

Kerala High Court Strikes Down State Orders Limiting Reservation in Promotion for Disabled Employees

Ernakulam: In a significant ruling upholding the rights of persons with disabilities, the Kerala High Court has quashed parts of state government orders that restricted reservation in promotion for differently-abled employees. A Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S.TH held that such reservation cannot be confined only to posts where appointments are made through both direct recruitment and promotion.

The Court also invalidated the state's decision to use roster points 6, 31, 56, and 81 for this purpose, directing adherence to the Central Government's Office Memorandum which specifies points 1, 26, 51, and 76. The judgment allows a batch of writ appeals filed by Section Officers from Mahatma Gandhi University and Kannur University, who were denied promotion to higher posts like Assistant Registrar and Deputy Registrar.

Background of the Case

The appellants, all persons with benchmark disabilities of over 40%, had challenged the rejection of their requests for promotion under the quota earmarked for differently-abled candidates as per the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act). They were aggrieved by government orders (GOs) dated 26.10.2023 and 01.02.2024, which stipulated that reservation in promotion would only apply to posts filled by both direct recruitment and promotion. Since the higher posts in the universities were filled solely by promotion, the universities denied their claims.

The appellants argued that this condition was arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the spirit of the RPwD Act and landmark Supreme Court judgments.

Arguments Presented

Appellants' Contentions: * The counsel for the appellants argued that the state government's condition created an artificial and illegal distinction between posts filled solely by promotion and those filled by a mix of promotion and direct recruitment. * They contended that the state cannot deviate from the roster points (1, 26, 51, 76) prescribed in the Central Government's Office Memorandum dated 17.05.2022, as the state's chosen points (6, 31, 56, 81) would delay and nullify the benefit of reservation. * Relying on Supreme Court precedents, they asserted that once a post in the feeder cadre is identified as suitable for persons with disabilities, reservation must extend to promotional avenues without unnecessary restrictions.

Respondents' Stance (State and Universities): * The State Government and Universities defended the GOs, arguing that the first proviso to Section 34(1) of the RPwD Act, 2016, empowers the "appropriate Government" to issue instructions regarding reservation in promotion. * They claimed that identification of promotional posts as suitable for persons with disabilities is a mandatory prerequisite, which had not been completed. * It was argued that the state has the prerogative to determine the applicable roster points and is not bound by the Central Government's memorandum.

Court's Analysis and Legal Precedents

The Division Bench undertook a comprehensive review of the legislative history of the 1995 and 2016 Acts and key judicial precedents. The court heavily relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in cases such as:

• Rajeev Kumar Gupta v. Union of India (2016) : Established that the rule of 'no reservation in promotions' laid down in Indra Sawhney does not apply to Persons with Disabilities (PwD), as the basis for their reservation is physical disability, not caste.
• Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka (2020) : Reaffirmed the right of PwDs to reservation in promotion.
• State of Kerala v. Leesamma Joseph (2021) : The Supreme Court explicitly held that the source of recruitment (direct or otherwise) is immaterial; what matters is that the employee is a person with a disability at the time of consideration for promotion. It also mandated the identification of promotional posts for reservation.

The High Court observed that the state's restrictive condition was directly contrary to the law laid down in these judgments. The bench held:

"From the law laid down in Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Siddaraju and Leesamma Joseph it is clear that it is the duty of the Government to provide reservation for PwBDs in promotion without differentiating them based on the mode of selection, such as direct appointment and promotion. Therefore Exts.17, P23 and P24 orders and Ext.P20 communication are bad to the extent it directs that reservation for PwBDs can be given only to the posts where appointments are done through both direct recruitment and by promotion."

Regarding the roster points, the court ruled that the state's deviation was arbitrary and defeated the purpose of the legislation. It noted that the purpose of fixing the initial roster points at 1, 26, 51, and 76 is to ensure that the benefit is granted promptly and not deferred.

"The purpose behind fixation of the Roster points for reservation at 1, 26, 51 and 76 is clear... Therefore, fixation of Roster points in 100 point Roster directed in Ext.P17 Government order as 6, 31, 56 and 81 can only be held as against the intention and purpose of granting reservation..."

Final Decision and Directions

Setting aside the judgment of the Single Judge, the Division Bench allowed the appeals and issued the following directions:

• The state government orders dated 26.10.2023 and 01.02.2024 were set aside to the extent they violated Supreme Court principles and the Central Government's Office Memorandum on roster points.
• Consequential orders issued by the universities rejecting the appellants' claims were also quashed.
• The respondents were directed to complete the process of identifying promotional posts for reservation, as mandated in the Leesamma Joseph case.
• Once identification is complete, the authorities must grant eligible employees promotion by applying the roster points specified in the Central Government's memorandum (1, 26, 51, 76).

This judgment reinforces the statutory right to reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities and ensures that state governments cannot introduce arbitrary conditions that undermine the objectives of the RPwD Act, 2016.