Yes, the judgment is path breaking, as it interprets SC's verdict of vacancies 
based on total cadre strength to mean direct recruitment as well as promotion, 
even though SC did not explicitly say so. SC decided about vacancies in 
identified posts versus total vacancies in total cadre.
However, this interpretation is very good for us, but I anticipate final 
adjudication  by supreme court on the issue...


-----Original Message-----
From: AccessIndia [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 
Kanchan Pamnani
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 6:40 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [AI] Bombay High court- reservation in Promotion

I have copied this judgement in this email because it may be useful for some of 
you. Kanchan

Order dated 4th December 2013



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.106 OF 2010

...

National Confederation for Development

of Disabled and another ...Petitioners

v/s.

Union of India and ors. ...Respondents

...

Mr.Mahesh Jethmalani, Sr.Counsel with Mr.Kamlesh Ghumre and

Ms.Gunjan Mangla i/b Mr.Rohit Mahadik for petitioners.

Mr.Rajeev Chavan with Mr.H.V.Mehta for the respondentUoI.

Mr.G.W.Mattos, AGP for State.

...

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. &

M.S.SANKLECHA, J.

DATE : 4 December 2013

P.C.:

By consent of parties, petition is taken up for final hearing.



2. In this public interest petition, the petitioners National Confederation for 
Development of Disabled have prayed for writ of mandamus to direct the 
respondents to appoint the disabled persons in terms of Section 33 of the 
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full 
Participation) Act, 1995 (PWD Act) in Indian Administrative Services posts to 
be filled up either by promotion from the State Civil Services or by selection 
from persons who hold gazetted posts in connection with the affairs of a state 
but are not members of the State Civil Services, as per their entitlement 
retrospectively from 1996 and to comply with the said provisions hereafter.



3. This petition was filed on 8 December 2010.



4. In the affidavit in reply filed by Under Secretary in the Union Public 
Service Commission on 1 March 2011 and in the affidavit in reply dated 20 April 
2012 filed by Under Secretary in the Department of Personnel and Training, 
Government of India, it was contended that provisions of Section 33 of PWD Act 
provides for reservation for the persons with disabilities only in the matter 
of appointment to the vacancies in the establishment. It does not provide for 
reservation in the matter of promotion. It was further contended that such 
reservation is applicable for persons with disabilities in Group "C" and Group 
"D" as provided in the Office Memorandum dated 20 November 1989 and in the 
subsequent Office Memorandum dated 29 December 2005 it is provided that 3% of 
the vacancies in case of promotion to Group "C" and Group "D" posts in which 
the element of direct recruitment, if any, does not exceed 75%, shall be 
reserved for persons with disabilities. It is, therefore, submitted that rese
 rvations for persons with disabilities were never available in Group "A" and 
Group "B" posts. It is further contended that the whole scheme of the cadre 
management of officers appointed by promotion to the promotion quota of an All 
India Service is quite different in nature from the scheme of things as are 
generally prevailing in the matter of promotion within the same service from a 
Group "B"/Group "A" post to a Group "A" posts.



5. In any view of the matter, nothing is brought to our notice indicating that 
posts in the Indian Administrative Services are excluded from reservation for 
persons with disabilities. In fact, in Government of India v/s. Ravi Prakash 
Gupta and anr. (2010) 7 SCC 626, the Supreme Court specifically dealt with the 
question of reservation in the matter of appointment to All India Service and 
held that reservation was applicable to posts in Groups "A", "B", "C" & "D". 
The Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the High Court and issued mandamus 
to the Central Government to offer the writ petitioner appointment to one of 
the reserved posts by issuing appropriate appointment order in the Indian 
Administrative Services.



6. In the said decision the Supreme Court also noted in paras 20 and 26 that 
neither Section 32 nor Section 33 of the PWD Act make any distinction with 
regard to Groups A, B, C and D posts. It was further noted that proviso to 
Section 33 does empower the appropriate Government to exempt any establishment 
from the provisions of the said section, having regard to the type of work 
carried out in any department or establishment. No such exemption was brought 
to the notice of the Supreme Court on behalf of the Government of India. Nor 
has any such exemption been brought to our notice.



7. In view of the above, we have to proceed on the basis that the reservation 
is available for Group A and Group B posts as well and the same would, 
therefore, include posts in the Indian Administrative Services.



8. Learned counsel for the Government of India, however, submits that the above 
decision would not necessarily mean that the posts to be filled by promotion 
are also available for reservation. Learned counsel submits that the case of 
Ravi Gupta (supra) was concerned with direct recruitment to the Indian 
Administrative Services and not with regard to promotion.



9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, thereupon, invited our attention to 
the recent judgment of three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Union of India 
v/s. National Federation of the Blind & ors., dated 8 October 2013.



10. In the said decision, three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has in terms 
held that Section 33 of the Act establishes vividly the intention of the 
legislature viz., reservation of 3% for differently abled persons has to be 
computed on the basis of total vacancies in the strength of a cadre and not 
just on the basis of the vacancies available in the identified posts. The 
Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of Section 33 of the Act and arrived at 
the following conclusion:

"Thus, after thoughtful consideration, we are of the view that the computation 
of reservation for persons with disabilities has to be computed in case of 
Group A, B, C and D posts in an identical manner viz., "computing 3% 
reservation on total number of

vacancies in the cadre strength" which is the intention of the legislature. 
Accordingly, certain clauses in the OM dated 29 December 2005, which are 
contrary to the above reasoning are struck down and we direct the appropriate 
Government to issue new Office Memorandum(s) in consistent with the decision 
rendered by this Court."

(emphasis supplied)



11. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, it is clear that 
reservation has to be computed with reference to total number of vacancies in 
the cadre strength and, therefore, no distinction can be made between the posts 
to be filled in by direct recruitment and by promotion. Total number of 
vacancies in the cadre strength would include the vacancies to be filled in by 
nomination and vacancies to be filled in by promotion.



12. The Supreme Court has given following directions to the Government of India 
to ensure proper implementation of the reservation policy for the disabled and 
to protect their rights:"54. In our opinion, in order to ensure proper 
implementation of the reservation policy for the disabled and to protect their 
rights, it is necessary to issue the following directions:

(i) We hereby direct the appellant herein to issue an appropriate order 
modifying the OM dated 29122005 and the subsequent Oms consistent with this 
Court's Order within three

months from the date of passing of this judgment.

(ii) We hereby direct the "appropriate Government" to compute the number of 
vacancies available in all the "establishments" and further identify the posts 
for disabled persons within a period of three months from today and implement 
the same without default.

(iii) The appellant herein shall issue instructions to all the 
departments/public sector undertakings/Government companies declaring that the 
non observance of the scheme of reservation for persons with disabilities 
should be considered as an act of  nobedience and Nodal Officer in 
department/public sector undertakings/Government companies, responsible for the 
proper strict implementation of reservation for person with disabilities, be 
departmentally proceeded against for the default."



13. In view of the above directions, it is clear that the respondents will have 
to give benefits of reservation to persons with disabilities in the matter of 
promotion to posts in the Indian Administrative Services by applying the Office 
Memorandum dated 29 December 2005 and subsequent Office Memorandum consistent 
with the aforesaid judgment dated 8 October 2013 of the Supreme Court and 
accordingly give benefits of the reservation with effect from the date of 
issuance of the said Office Memorandum dated 29 December 2005.



14. Writ petition is, accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms.



CHIEF JUSTICE

(M.S.SANKLECHA, J.)



Register at the dedicated AccessIndia list for discussing accessibility of 
mobile phones / Tabs on:
http://mail.accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/mobile.accessindia_accessindia.org.in


Search for old postings at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/

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


Disclaimer:
1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the thinking of the 
person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself to its veracity;

2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission based on the mails sent 
through this mailing list..

Caution: The Reserve Bank of India never sends mails, smses or makes calls 
asking for personal information like your bank account details, passwords, etc. 
It never keeps or offers funds to anyone. Please do not respond in any manner 
to such offers, however official or attractive they may look.

Notice: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and 
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are 
addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, use, 
review, distribution, printing or copying of the information contained in this 
e-mail message and/or attachments to it are strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this email by error,  please notify us by return e-mail or telephone 
and immediately and permanently delete the message and any attachments. The 
recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of 
viruses. The Reserve Bank of India  accepts no liability for any damage caused 
by any virus transmitted by this email.



Register at the dedicated AccessIndia list for discussing accessibility of 
mobile phones / Tabs on:
http://mail.accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/mobile.accessindia_accessindia.org.in


Search for old postings at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/

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


Disclaimer:
1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the thinking of the 
person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself to its veracity;

2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission based on the mails sent 
through this mailing list..

Reply via email to