In that case please send me the URL. Best regards,
Amiyo. Cell: +91-9433464329 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harshvardhan Singh Negi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 1:21 PM Subject: Re: [AI] A land mark judgement of reservation of VH in promotion > Hey folks, > You can get soft copy from Delhi highcourt website I don't have any Idia of > hard copy. > Thanks in advance > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Amiyo Biswas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 12:13 PM > Subject: Re: [AI] A land mark judgement of reservation of VH in promotion > > > > Hello, > > > > I need a hard copy or the web site of the judgement for my own benefit. > > How > > can I obtain it? > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Amiyo. > > > > Cell: +91-9433464329 > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Harshvardhan Singh Negi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 11:47 AM > > Subject: [AI] A land mark judgement of reservation of VH in promotion > > > > > >> 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 > > > > > > 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 > > > 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 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
