Landmark Judgment on Reservation in Promotions for Persons with Disabilities

The case of Siddaraju vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. raised a critical legal question: Can persons with disabilities (PWD) be granted reservations in promotions? This issue had been previously addressed in Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Others v. Union of India & Others, but conflicting interpretations led to a reference for a larger bench.

The Supreme Court had to determine whether PWDs, governed under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, could claim reservation in promotions despite the prohibition laid down in Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India & Others, which barred reservations in promotions for backward classes under Article 16(4) of the Constitution.

Arguments by the Petitioner

The petitioner, Siddaraju, contended that:

• Reservation in promotions was necessary for PWDs to ensure equal opportunities in government employment.
• The 1995 Act was enacted to remove discrimination against disabled persons and promote their integration into society.
• Sections 32 and 33 of the 1995 Act mandated reservation for PWDs and should be applicable in all cases, including promotions.
• The earlier judgment in Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Others v. Union of India & Others had correctly interpreted the law, ensuring that reservation benefits were not limited to direct recruitment alone.

Arguments by the Respondent

The State of Karnataka and the Union of India opposed the petition, arguing that:

• The judgment in Indra Sawhney barred reservations in promotions, and this applied to all forms of reservations under Article 16.
• Preferential treatment could be provided to PWDs in initial appointments, but promotions should be based purely on merit and seniority.
• The 1995 Act did not specifically provide for reservations in promotions, and reading such a provision into it would go against constitutional principles.

Supreme Court Judgment

The Supreme Court, after reviewing the relevant laws and past judgments, made the following key observations:

“The rule of no reservation in promotions as laid down in Indra Sawhney has clearly and normatively no application to PWD. The basis for providing reservation for PWD is physical disability and not any of the criteria forbidden under Article 16(1).”

The Court held that the Indra Sawhney ruling applied only to reservations for backward classes under Article 16(4) and did not extend to reservations for persons with disabilities under Article 16(1). It reaffirmed the decision in Rajeev Kumar Gupta and ruled that PWDs are entitled to reservations in promotions.

Final Outcome

The Supreme Court’s verdict established the following principles:

• Reservation in promotions for PWDs is permissible and required under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.
• The rule laid down in Indra Sawhney barring reservations in promotions does not apply to PWDs.
• All government departments must ensure proper implementation of reservations for PWDs, including in promotions.

With this judgment, the Supreme Court solidified the rights of disabled individuals in government employment, ensuring they receive equal opportunities at all levels of service.

Petitioner Name: Siddaraju.
Respondent Name: State of Karnataka & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice R.F. Nariman, Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice V. Ramasubramanian.
Place Of Incident: Karnataka.
Judgment Date: 14-01-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Siddaraju vs State of Karnataka & Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 14-01-2020.pdf