Reservation in Promotion for Persons with Disabilities: Rajeev Kumar Gupta vs. Union of India

The case of Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Others vs. Union of India & Others is a landmark judgment regarding the reservation of promotions for Persons with Disabilities (PWD) in public sector employment. The Supreme Court ruled that denying reservation in promotion to disabled employees in Group A and Group B posts was illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (PWD Act).

The Court struck down office memoranda that excluded PWD candidates from availing reservation in promotions and directed the government to implement the statutory three percent reservation across all identified posts.

Background of the Case

The petitioners, employees of Prasar Bharati Corporation of India, a statutory body under the Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Act, 1990, filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court. They contended that two office memoranda issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) (dated 18.02.1997 and 29.12.2005) denied them reservation in Group A and B posts, thereby violating their statutory rights under the PWD Act.

The core grievance was that while three percent reservation was provided in direct recruitment to identified posts, it was not extended to promotions in Group A and B, unlike in Group C and D.

Key Legal Issues

• Whether the government’s decision to exclude Group A and B posts from reservation in promotion violated the PWD Act.
• Whether the bar on reservation in promotions, as held in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India (1992), applied to PWD reservations.
• Whether the classification of PWD candidates based on mode of recruitment was arbitrary and unconstitutional.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioners’ (Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Others) Arguments

• The exclusion of PWD candidates from reservation in promotions in Group A and B was discriminatory.
• The identified posts were already found to be suitable for PWD under Section 32 of the PWD Act, so denying reservation in promotions defied the purpose of the Act.
• The exclusion prevented disabled employees from progressing to higher positions, restricting career advancement.
• The government’s classification between direct recruitment and promotion for PWD reservation was irrational and had no nexus with the object of the PWD Act.

Respondents’ (Union of India) Arguments

• Reservation under Section 33 of the PWD Act applies only to direct recruitment.
• The exclusion of reservation in promotions followed the principles laid down in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India (1992), which barred reservation in promotions under Article 16(4) of the Constitution.
• Providing reservation in promotions would dilute merit and efficiency in higher posts.

High Court’s Ruling

The case was initially heard by the Delhi High Court, which ruled in favor of the petitioners. The court held that PWD reservations were distinct from reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) and thus not subject to the restrictions imposed by the Indra Sawhney judgment.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court’s decision and ruled against the government’s position. The Court held that the exclusion of Group A and B posts from reservation in promotions was contrary to the statutory mandate of the PWD Act.

“The purpose underlying the statutory exercise of identification under Section 32 of the PWD Act would be negated if reservation is denied to those identified posts by prescribing a mode of recruitment that excludes disabled persons.”

Key Observations by the Court

• The Indra Sawhney ruling on reservation in promotions does not apply to PWD candidates, as PWD reservations are based on physical disability rather than social or educational backwardness.
• The government cannot deny reservation in promotions by restricting appointments in Group A and B posts to promotions only.
• Once a post is identified under Section 32 of the PWD Act as suitable for PWD candidates, reservation under Section 33 must follow, irrespective of the mode of recruitment.
• The government’s policy of allowing reservation in promotions only for Group C and D but not for Group A and B was arbitrary and unconstitutional.
• The denial of reservation to PWD candidates in higher posts violated their fundamental rights under Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 16 (Equal Opportunity in Employment).

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

• The government must extend the three percent reservation to promotions in identified Group A and B posts.
• The two office memoranda restricting reservation in promotions were declared illegal and set aside.
• The government was directed to frame a policy ensuring promotion-based reservations for PWD candidates.
• The Court emphasized the need for a periodic review of identified posts to enhance opportunities for disabled employees.

Conclusion and Legal Impact

This ruling reinforces several key legal principles:

• PWD reservations are distinct from SC/ST reservations and are not subject to the restrictions imposed by Indra Sawhney.
• Excluding PWD candidates from reservation in promotions violates their constitutional and statutory rights.
• Identified posts must have a mandatory three percent reservation, irrespective of the mode of recruitment.
• The ruling ensures that disabled employees can compete fairly in higher positions and are not restricted to lower-tier jobs.

The Supreme Court’s decision is a landmark ruling in disability rights and employment law, setting a precedent for the full and fair implementation of reservation policies for persons with disabilities.

Judgment delivered by: J. Chelameswar, Abhay Manohar Sapre

Judgment Date: June 30, 2016

The ruling is a significant step in ensuring equal employment opportunities for persons with disabilities and mandates full implementation of their reservation rights in government jobs.

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

Download Judgment: Rajeev Kumar Gupta & vs Union of India & Oth Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 30-06-2016-1741872463701.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Promotion Cases
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Judgment by J. Chelameswar
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay Manohar Sapre
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments June 2016
See all petitions in 2016 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category