Kindly find the judgement of Delhi highcourt regarding Reservation in promotion
of VH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
WP (C) Nos. 11818 and 13627-28/2004
07.12.2007
Pronounced on : December 07, 2007
# Union of India thru G.M. Northern Railway .....Petitioner in
WP(C) No.
11818/2004
Chairman, Railway Board ....Petitioner in WP(C) No.
13627-28/2004
! through : Mr.
V.S.R. Krishna with
Mr. B.S. Rajesh Agrajit
VERSUS
$ Jagmohan Singh .....Respondent in
WP(C) No.
11818/2004
Northern Railway Physically Handicapped
Employees Welfare Association and Ors.
......Respondent in WP(C) No.
13627-28/2004
! through : Dr. Harish
Uppal for the
respondent in WP(C)
No.11818/2004
Mr.A.K. Behera for the
respondent in WP(C) No.
13627-28/2004
CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
A.K. SIKRI, J.
1.The question that arises for consideration in these cases is as to whether 3%
reservation under Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995
{hereinafter referred to as the 'Disability Act'} in the public employment
provided in favour of the physically handicapped persons would be available to
them even for promotions as well. The Tribunal has, vide the impugned judgment,
decided this question in the affirmative. Not satisfied with this opinion of
the Tribunal, in these writ petitions the said judgment was assailed by the
Government. It would be advisable to take note of the factual matrix under
which the aforesaid question arises for consideration from WP (C) No. 11818/04.
2.The respondent herein is an orthopaedically handicapped person having 55%
disability. He was appointed as LDC in the Northern Railways on 16.6.1972. He
got promotions from time to time and has risen to the rank of Office
Superintendent Grade-I (OS-I). Next promotion is to the post of Chief Office
Superintendent (COS). Two posts of COS were created by the petitioner on the
recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission vide letter dated 10.5.1998.
They are to be filled up as a one time relaxation following the process of
modified selection as per the Railway Board's communication dated February 1999.
It is not in dispute that the existing instructions with regard to reservations
of SC/ST have been observed to be continued in the new grades.
3.Even before the Disability Act came into force in the year 1996, the
Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training vide OM dated
28.2.1986 had provided for reservations in jobs for physically handicapped
persons in Group C and D posts. The posts on which such reservation was to be
applied were identified by the Railway Board on 10.7.1987. As many as 253 jobs
in Group C and 17 in Group D were identified where physically handicapped
persons could be appointed. The post in question, namely, Chief Office
Superintendent is a Group C post. The Government of India, Ministry of
Personnel issued a memorandum on 20.11.1989 providing reservation for physically
handicapped in the posts filled by promotion. This has to be implemented by all
Ministries and Departments. By Disability Act coming into force on 7.2.1996, a
mandatory requirement of providing 3% reservation in appointments has been made,
which included handicap in vision, hearing and locomotion. However, this is
with a rider that having regard to the type of work in any establishment, the
appropriate Government by way of a notification exempt any department or
establishment from reserving the posts for disabled persons. Memorandum dated
16.1.1998 provides 100 point roster for reserved posts for physically
handicapped and point No.1 is reserved for physically handicapped. OM dated
18.2.1997 issued by the Ministry of Personnel provides reservation as per roster
to the physically handicapped persons in Group A and B posts and also OM dated
4.7.1997 providing roster points No. 1, 24, 67 in the cycle of 100 vacancies for
100 point roster to be reserved for physically handicapped persons.
4.The respondent herein wanted that for appointment to the post of COS
reservation for physically handicapped persons be also made in tune with such
reservations having provided for SC/ST candidates. We may, however, note that
prior to the enactment of the Disability Act, the Ministry of Railways had taken
a decision on 5.12.1995 that for the posts which are to be filled by promotion,
reservations for physically handicapped persons would not be given keeping in
view the special nature of job and safe carriage of goods and passengers.
However, after the Disability Act came into force, the respondent made
representations, both individually as well as through his Association i.e.
Northern Railway Physically Handicapped Employees Welfare Association, to
provide such reservation even when the posts are to be filled by promotion.
These representations were not responded to by the Railway Authorities. The
respondent, thus, filed OA No. 3108/2002 which was disposed of with the
directions to consider the representation of the respondent in the light of OM
dated 20.11.1989. The Department considered the representation and turned down
the same vide its decision dated 26.4.2002 and 25.3.2003. As the authorities
did not accede to the respondent's demand, he filed second OA being OA No.
2633/2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New
Delhi. That is how the question posed at the outset came for consideration
before the Tribunal.
5.Perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal would reveal that the case of the
respondent before it was that once the Government had taken a decision to
introduce reservation for physically handicapped persons in Group C and D posts,
and the post of COS was a Group C post, reservation had to be provided in this
post as well and it could not be exempted on the purported ground that such a
reservation was not possible because of the safe carriage of goods and
passengers. It was stressed that job of COS is an office job and the
disability, insofar as the physically handicapped is concerned, is in no manner
going to put hindrance in the discharge of duties. The petitioner had given the
following justification for not adopting the instructions of DoPT dated
20.11.1989 :-
(i) Every post at the lowest grade of entry has an avenue of promotion.
Some of the promotions, e.g. Khallasi to Khallasi Helper, Junior Clerk to Senior
Clerk, Junior Chargeman to Senior Chargeman etc. are more or less based on
proportionate distribution between the two grades, the higher grade being the
compensation for more experience gained in basically the same nature of duties.
However, in more senior grades the nature of duties become markedly different,
involving far greater mobility and far wider range of knowledge and
responsibilities. This fact has been recognized by placing a selection between
the lowest grades and the next higher grade. The selection procedures are
necessarily stringent so as to ensure that only the really capable in all
respects are put out to shoulder the much higher responsibilities devolving in
the higher grade.
(ii) Difficulty in implementing reservation for physically handicapped in
higher grades filled by promotion involving supervisory duties requiring fair
amount of mobility and visual acuity.
(iii) In some cases promotions may involve transfer from the existing
place of duty of the physically handicapped posting problem attendant on
dislocation of the physically handicapped.
(iv) It has not been possible to fill the 3% quota prescribed for
recruitment of physically handicapped persons in identified posts from the open
market. In fact there is a considerable backlog, the main reasons being
availability of limited number of posts/ categories identified for appointment
of physically handicapped as against computation of vacancies for this purpose
on the number of direct recruitment in both identified as well as non-identified
categories. In this background with adequate number of physically handicapped
persons no being there in the feeder grade we will be faced with a situation of
perennial backlog and carry forward.
(v) Reservation in posts filled by promotion for physically handicapped
employee has also not been found necessary in view of the non-discriminatory
provisions in place in the Railways in the matter of their promotion along with
others subject to their passing selection/suitability/trade test, as enjoined in
Section 47(2) of the Disability Act.
(vi) Reservation as prescribed for physically handicapped is already being
followed at the initial stage of recruitment from the open market in posts
identified for being manned by appropriate category of handicapped as enjoined
in Section 33 of the Disability Act.
(vii) The Railways, being an operational transport organization, basically
responsible for the safe carriage of goods and passengers, reservation in
promotion for promotion for physically handicapped has not been found to be
necessary.
6.The Tribunal, in this detailed judgment, did not find favour with any of the
arguments of the petitioner herein. It opined that having regard to the
objectives in providing such reservations, the benefit thereof had to be given
to the respondent, more so when the post in question to which promotion is to be
made is a Group C post and OM dated 20.11.1989 specifically provides for
reservation in Group C posts. The Tribunal, thus, found that the alleged policy
decision was totally arbitrary and without any rational or reasonable grounds.
It went on to observe that it was a glaring example of arbitrariness and
unreasonable classification, inasmuch as, for the same post of COS, in the
normal channel, the respondent could be considered and promoted and physical
disability was not an impediment while, ironically, it becomes impediment when
benefit of reservation is to be given.
7.Before us similar arguments were advanced by the petitioner on the basis of
which the respondent's application was contested. It was stated in the first
instance that Section 33 of the Disability Act does not provide for a
reservation in the promotional post. Submission was that the expression
?vacancies? occurring in Section 33 would relate to the vacancies only at
induction level and not while making promotions. It was again stressed that
though promotion was not to be denied to a person merely on the ground of his
disability, at the same time, it was even the province of the appropriate
Government to give regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment
and on that basis decide as to whether for a particular job any such reservation
is to be given to the persons suffering from disability, as provided in Section
47 of the Disability Act. Learned counsel submitted that giving due regard to
the said provision the Ministry of Railways included the necessary provision
under Para 189-A and Para 231-A of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual Vol.
I (Revised Edition 1989). Para 189-A reads as under :-
?189A : Promotion of persons with disability
There shall be no discrimination in the matter of promotion merely on the
ground of physical disability. This will apply to categories of staff who have
been recruited from the open market against the vacancies reserved for
recruitment of physically handicapped and the staff who acquire disability
during service and are absorbed in suitable alternative employment as per
provision contained in Ch. XIII. Such staff will be considered for promotion in
their turn based on their eligibility and suitability along with others in the
selection/ suitability/trade test for promotion to higher Grade post.
Para 231-A is identically worded
8.He also submitted that Section 47 only mandated that there would not be any
discrimination in the matter of promotion and from this it would not follow that
such a person is to be given ?preferential treatment?. Learned counsel also
stated that a conscious policy decision was taken by the Railways keeping in
view the duties of COS and it was decided that no such reservation could be
given in the said post keeping in view the safety of the goods and passengers.
His submission was that even the DoPT was apprised of the aforesaid decision and
the logic behind the same and, therefore, it can be presumed that DoPT had no
objection to, or any dissensions on the Raiways decision to depart from its
policies.
9.Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the reasoning
adopted by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment. He also referred to the
provisions of the Disability Act and emphasized that liberal interpretation was
to be given to the language of Sections 33 and 47 of the Disability Act in order
to ensure that it subserves the purpose for which these provisions were
introduced in the said enactment.
10.We have given our utmost consideration to the submissions of counsel on both
sides.
11.In order to reach the root of the issue, it would be necessary to understand
the rational and reason for making provision for reservation in employment for
differently able persons under the Disability Act.
12.Our constitutional governance, as envisaged, respects basic human rights and
promotes human development in all situations wherein the dignity and the worth
of an individual lies at the core of a democratic value. The noble objectives
and rights enshrined in our Constitutional are to be materialized in regard to
the entire Indian Society which also includes Communities that had remained
disadvantaged and under developed due to various reasons and includes people
with disabilities. It is the aim of any civilized society to secure dignity to
every individual. There cannot be dignity without equality of status and
opportunity. The absence of equal opportunities in any walk of social life is a
denial of equal status and equal participation in the affairs of the society,
and therefore, of its equal membership. The dignity of the individual is dented
and direct proportion to his deprivation of the equal access to social means.
The democratic foundations are missing when equal opportunity to grow, govern
and give one?s best to the society is denied to a sizable section of the
society. The deprivation of the opportunities may be direct or indirect as when
the wherewithals to avail of them are denied. Nevertheless, the consequences are
as potent (See: Indira Sawhney v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477).
13.Let us understand the rights of disabled with aforesaid constitutional
mandate in mind. Disability is a result both of the biological condition of the
individual and of the social status that attaches to that biological condition.
Till recently, persons with disabilities were depicted not as subjects of legal
rights but as objects of welfare, health and charity programs. The underlying
policy had been to segregate and exclude people with disabilities from
mainstream society, sometimes providing them with special schools, sheltered
workshops, special housing and transportation. This policy was perceived as just
because disabled persons were believed incapable of coping with both society at
large and all or most major life activities. A Division Bench of this Court in
Social Jurist, A Lawyers Group v. UOI and Ors. 2002 VI AD (DELHI) 217 was forced
to pass the following comments:
?It is the common experience of several persons with disabilities that they are
unable to lead a full life due to societal barriers and discrimination faced by
them in employment, access to public spaces, transportation etc. Persons with
disability are most neglected lot not only in the society but also in the
family. More often they are an object of pity. There are hardly any meaningful
attempts to assimilate them in the mainstream of the Nation's life. The apathy
towards their problems is so pervasive that even the number of disabled persons
existing in the country is not well documented.
T.R.Dye, Policy Analyst, in his book `Understanding Public Policy' says:
``Conditions in society which are not defined as a problem and for which
alternatives are never proposed, never become policy issues. Government does
nothing and conditions remain the same.'`
This statement amply applies in the case of the disabled. At least this was the
position till few years ago. The condition of the disabled in the society was
not defined as a problem, and therefore, it did not become public issue. It is
not that this problem was not addressed. Various NGOs, Authors, Human Rights
Groups have been focusing on this problem from time to time and for quite
sometime. But it was not defined as a problem which could become public issue.
Until the realisation dawned on the Government and the policy makers that the
right of the disabled was also a human right issue.
xxx xxx xxx
Various kinds of rights are recognised in this legislation which is on the
Statute book for last about 6 years now but the question is as to whether the
Act is implemented in its true spirit and the rights conferred upon disabled
under this Act have been translated into reality?? Whether the disabled are able
to reap the fruits of this legislation?? The present case is a pointer to the
fact that all is still not well.
Unless the mindset of the public changes; unless the attitude of the persons and
officials who are given the duty of implementation of? this? Act? changes,
whatever? rights are granted to the disabled under? the Act, would remain on
paper.?
14. The subject of the rights of people with disabilities should be approached
from human rights perspective, which recognizes that persons with disabilities
are entitled to enjoy the full range of guaranteed rights and freedoms without
discrimination on the ground of disability. There should be a full recognition
of the fact that persons with disability are the integral part of the community,
equal in dignity and entitled to enjoy the same human rights and freedoms as
others.
15.With this objective in mind the Disability Act was enacted. The Disability
Act enacts a disability-equality law and does not limit itself to prohibiting
discrimination, but addresses a wide range of issues relating to persons with
disabilities. It is the legislative attempt to open up employment, education,
housing, and goods and services for persons regardless of their disabilities in
order to change the understanding of disability from a medical to a social
category.
16.Therefore, providing employment to persons with disability is absolutely
essential. As, with unemployment, comes isolation and fewer opportunities to
participate in the life of a community or in recreational and social activities.
Thus, a human rights approach offers both the platform for such societal
transformation and a way for disabled people to transform their sense of who
they are ? from stigmatised objects of care to valued subjects of their own
lives. For people who are poor and oppressed this is a key starting point of any
meaningful process of social and economic development. According to Gerard Quinn
and Theresia Degener (Human rights and disability: The current use and future
potential of United Nations human rights instruments in the context of
disability. Geneva, Office of the High Commission for Human Rights. (2002)
Available at, http://193.194.138.190/disability/study.htm, p.1.):-
?[T]he human rights perspective means viewing people with disabilities as
subjects and not as objects. It entails moving away from viewing people with
disabilities as problems toward viewing them as rights holders. Importantly, it
means locating any problems outside the person and especially in the manner by
which various economic and social processes accommodate the difference of
disability or not as the case may be. The debate about disability rights is
therefore connected to a larger debate about the place of difference in
society.?
17.Introduction of provisions like Section 33 and Section 47 of the Disability
Act is to be seen with this objective in mind.
18.The conjoint reading of Sections 33 and 47 of the Disability Act giving the
interpretation which these provisions deserve, we are of the opinion that the
persons with disability would be entitled to reservation even in promotion if
the promotion is to Group C and D post. For the sake of convenience, we
reproduce Sections 33 and 47(2) of the Disability Act, which are to the
following effect :-
?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.
xx xx xx
47. Non-discrimination in Government employment. -
(1) xx xx xx
(2) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his
disability:
Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work
carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions,
if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from
the provisions of this section.?
19.We may also reproduce here the relevant OM dated 20.11.1989 of the DoPT,
which reads as under :-
?12. Reservation for the physically handicapped in Groups 'C' and 'D'
posts filled by promotion. - It has been decided that when promotions are being
made (i) within Group 'D', (ii) from Group 'D' to Group 'C' and (iii) within
Group 'C', reservation will be provided for the three categories of the
physically handicapped persons, namely, the visually handicapped, the hearing
handicapped and the orthopaedically handicapped.
The applicability of the reservation will, however, be limited to the
promotions being made to those posts that are identified as being capable of
being filled/held by the appropriate category of physically handicapped.
2. Each of the three categories of the physically handicapped persons will
be allowed reservation at one per cent each. Though the reservations will be
effective only in those posts that are identified as being capable of being held
by the appropriate category of the physically handicapped persons, the number of
vacancies that will be reserved for the physically handicapped persons when
promotions are being made to such identified posts will be computed by taking
into account the total number of vacancies that arise for being filled by
promotion in a recruitment year both in the non-identified as well as identified
posts. If the appropriate category of the physically handicapped persons are
not available in the feeder grade from which promotion is being made to the next
higher grade of the identified posts, then an inter se exchange will be
permitted subject to the conditions that -
(i) the post to which promotion is to be made is one that can be held by
the category of the physically handicapped persons available in the feeder
grade; and
(ii) the reservation so exchanged is carried forward to the next three
recruitment years after which the reservation shall lapse.?
As per the aforesaid OM, reservation for physically handicapped in Group
C and D posts, even when filled by promotion, is prescribed.
20.As noticed above, prior to the Disability Act coming into force, the
Government had, by administrative instructions, provided reservation for
physically handicapped persons in Group C and D posts. After the Disability Act
came into force, such a reservation is now permissible even for Group A and B
posts. This led the DoPT to issue OM dated 18.12.1997. Referring to Section 33
of the Disability Act, this OM mentions that the reservation stands extended to
identified Group A and B posts filled through direct recruitment. In this OM,
however, it is stated that such reservation would be termed as horizontal
reservation in contradistinction to the reservation of SC/ST candidates where
reservation is available at horizontal as well as vertical level with the
principle of interlocking of vertical and horizontal reservations, as laid down
by the Supreme Court in the case of Indira Sawhney v. Union of India and Ors.,
AIR 1993 SC 477. Though as per this OM for Group A and B posts the reservation
was only at induction level, significantly corrigendum was issued by the DoPT
vide OM dated 4.7.1997, which reads as under :-
?Subject: Reservation for the physically handicapped persons in Group A and B
Posts/Services under the Central Government.
The undersigned is directed to invite attention to this department's O.M. No.
36035/169/91-Estt.(SCT) dated 18.2.97 on the above subject and to say that it
has been represented before the Government that the earmarking of points no. 33,
67 and 100 in the prescribed register for reservation for the physically
handicapped would mean that the physically handicapped candidates may have to
wait for a long time to get their turn for promotion. The suggestion has been
considered and it has now been decided in partial modification of the O.M. cited
above that the point number of 34 and 67 in cycle of 100 vacancies in the 100
point register and be marked for reservation for physically handicapped. The
other instructions contained in the aforesaid O.M. remains unchanged.
Sd/-
(Y.G. Parande)
Director?
21.It is clear from the above that point No.34 and 67 in the cycle of 100 are
now earmarked for reservation for physically handicapped and, thus, reservation
is admissible even for Group A and B posts in promotion category and not only at
the induction level. We are of the opinion that this OM is brought in tune with
the letter and spirit behind Section 33 of the Disability Act. On
interpretation of such a provision legal position is abundantly clear. This is
a benevolent measure introduced to ameliorate the sufferings of persons who are
physically disabled. Such a provision is to be given the widest possible
interpretation. The objective is to achieve the purpose for which such a
provision is introduced by the Parliament. The Apex Court in Kunal Singh v.
Union of India AIR 2003 SC 1623 held that:
``9. Chapter VI of the Act deals with employment relating to persons with
disabilities, who are yet to secure employment. Section 47, which falls in
Chapter VIII, deals with an employee, who is already in service and acquires a
disability during his service. It must be borne in mind that Section 2 of the
Act has given distinct and different definitions of ``disability'` and ``person
with disability'`. It is well settled that in the same enactment if two distinct
definitions are given defining a word/expression, they must be understood
accordingly in terms of the definition. It must be remembered that a person does
not acquire or suffer disability by choice. An employee, who acquires disability
during his service, is sought to be protected under Section 47 of the Act
specifically. Such employee, acquiring disability, if not protected, would not
only suffer himself, but possibly all those who depend on him would also suffer.
The very frame and contents of Section 47 clearly indicate its mandatory nature.
The very opening part of the section reads ``no establishment shall dispense
with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his
service'`. The section further provides that if an employee after acquiring
disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some
other post with the same pay scale and service benefits; if it is not possible
to adjust the employee against any post he will be kept on a supernumerary post
until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation,
whichever is earlier. Added to this no promotion shall be denied to a person
merely on the ground of his disability as is evident from sub-section (2) of
Section 47. Section 47 contains a clear directive that the employer shall not
dispense with or reduce in rank an employee who acquires a disability during the
service. In construing a provision of a social beneficial enactment that too
dealing with disabled persons intended to give them equal opportunities,
protection of rights and full participation, the view that advances the object
of the Act and serves its purpose must be preferred to the one which obstructs
the object and paralyses the purpose of the Act. Language of Section 47 is plain
and certain casting statutory obligation on the employer to protect an employee
acquiring disability during service.'`
22.This Court dealing with Section 33 of the Disability Act in All India
Confederation of the Blind v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. 2005 (123) DLT 244
clearly laid down that the Disability act is a benevolent legislation and it has
been repeatedly held that benevolent enactments ought to be given liberal and
expansive interpretation, and not narrow or restrictive construction (see Madan
Singh Shekhawat v. Union of India; 1996 (6) SCC 459; Deepal Girishbhai Soni v.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2004 SC 2107; Babu Parasakaikadi v. Babu
2004 (1) SCC 681).
23.Where alternative constructions are possible the court must give effect to
that which will be responsible for the smooth working of the system for which
the statute has been enacted rather than the one which would put hindrances in
its way.
24.If the choice is between two interpretations, the narrower of which would
fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation we should avoid a
construction which would reduce the legislation to futility and should rather
accept the bolder construction based on the view that Parliament would legislate
only for the purpose of bringing about an effective result. - Nokes v. Doncaster
Amalgamated Collieries Ltd (1940) A.C. 1014. Where alternative constructions are
equally open, that alternative is to be chosen which will be consistent with the
smooth working of the system which the statute purports to be regulating; and
that alternative is to be rejected which will introduce uncertainty, fiction or
confusion into the working of the system.- Shannon Realities Ltd v. Ville de St
Michel (1924) A.C. 185. [Maxwell pg. 45].
25.It is well settled principle of law that as the statute is an edict of the
Legislature, the conventional way of interpreting or construing a statute is to
seek the intention of legislature. The intention of legislature assimilates two
aspects; one aspect carries the concept of ?meaning?, i.e., what the word means
and another aspect conveys the concept of ?purpose? and ?object? or the ?reason?
or ?spirit? pervading through the statute. The process of construction,
therefore, combines both the literal and purposive approaches. However,
necessity of interpretation would arise only where the language of a statutory
provision is ambiguous, not clear or where two views are possible or where the
provision gives a different meaning defeating the object of the statute. If the
language is clear and unambiguous, no need of interpretation would arise. In
this regard, a Constitution Bench of five Judges of the Supreme Court in R.S.
Nayak v A.R. Antulay, AIR 1984 SC 684 has held:
??If the words of the Statute are clear and unambiguous, it is the plainest duty
of the Court to give effect to the natural meaning of the words used in the
provision. The question of construction arises only in the event of an ambiguity
or the plain meaning of the words used in the Statute would be self defeating.?
(para 18)
26.In Grasim Industries Ltd. v Collector of Customs, Bombay, (2002) 4 SCC 297
has followed the same principle and observed:
27.?Where the words are clear and there is no obscurity, and there is no
ambiguity and the intention of the legislature is clearly conveyed, there is no
scope for court to take upon itself the task of amending or altering the
statutory provisions.? (para 10)
28.Once this matter is seen from this perspective and we have to ensure that
persons suffering from disability also grow in stature and for this reason
reservation is provided in the employment, limiting the same only at the
induction level and not in the matter of promotions would be totally unjust.
Therefore, in view of the aforesaid provision, coupled with the interpretation
of the Government itself provided vide OM dated 20.11.1989 and corrigendum dated
4.7.1997, reservation has to be provided in the matter of promotions as well.
29.In this context we now examine as to whether persons like the respondent
could be deprived of the benefit on the basis of the purported policy decision.
30.We feel that as per the petitioner's own argument, purported policy decision
is arbitrary and irrational and there is no justification from deviating from
the Government's policy contained in aforesaid OMs. The post of COS is a Group
C post and reservation to Group C post is provided as per the DoPT circular and
the Railways own policy. Therefore, in normal course there appears to be no
reason not to provide reservation for persons suffering with disability to this
post. The so-called policy decision of the petitioner, to ensure safe carriage
of goods and passengers, whereby the petitioner do not want to give reservation
for the said post to physically handicapped persons is not only unjust but
aggravates the suffering of persons living/employed with disability. Further,
it is to be noted that the petitioner do not deny that a person suffering from
physical disability is entitled to promotion to this very post in normal course.
We fail to understand as to how when such physically handicapped person gets
promotion to the post of COS in the normal course would be able to discharge the
function of that post satisfactorily but would not be able to do so if he is
promoted to this post under the reservation quota. Ironically, this was the
argument of learned counsel for the petitioner before the Tribunal that in the
normal course, despite being handicap, the respondent herein was eligible to be
considered in the selection for promotion to Group C post of COS subject to his
qualification in the selection. If selection by promotion to such a post under
normal channel is available to a person like the respondent and his handicapped-
ness, in that eventuality, does not come in way of discharging his duties, the
reason for not providing reservation on this ground is contradictory in terms
and cannot be sustained. Such a justification for denying reservation is
totally irrational and arbitrary. It, rather, depicts closed and narrow minded
approach of the petitioner, which is unsustainable in view of the discussion
above.
31.As a consequence of the aforesaid discussion, we uphold the judgment of the
Tribunal and dismiss these writ petitions with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/-
each.
(A.K. SIKRI)
JUDGE
(VIPIN SANGHI)
JUDGE
December 07, 2007
nsk
To unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the subject unsubscribe.
To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, please
visit the list home page at
http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in
