ASHOK KUMAR GIRI versus GOVT. OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 960 · Decided: 27-04-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, S.A. BOBDE · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 960 
ASHOK KUMAR GIRi 
v. 
GOVT. OF INDIA AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4476of2016) 
APRIL 27, 2016 
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA 
AND S. A. BOBDE, JJ.l 
C 
Person with Disabilities. (Equal Opportunity. Protection of 
Rights and Full Protection) Act, 1995 - ss. 32, 33 - Reservation for 
differently abled persons - Computation of - Held: Reservation for 
differently abled persons would have to be computed on the basis 
of total vacancies of the cadre and not on the basis of the vacancies 
D available in the identified post, namely, at the time of notification 
calling for applications to fill up the available vacant vacancies -
Order passed by the Iligh Court set aside and matter remitled to 
back to the High Court to decide the writ petition afresh in light of 
the decision in *National Federation of the Blind and Others·s case. 
E 
*Union of India and Another v. National Federation of 
the Blind and Others 2013 (9) SCR 1023:(2013) 10 
sec 772 - relied on. 
F 
Ca~e Law Reference 
2013 (9) SCR 1023 
relied on 
Para 5 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 44 76 of 
2016. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.10.2014 of the Division 
Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in L. P.A. No. 303 of 
G 
2014. 
H 
Ms. Rani Chhabra, Ms. Priyanka Sony, Ad vs. for the Appellant. 
Neeraj Kishan Kaul, ASG, Ms. Sunita Rani Singh, Sanyat Lodha, 
Sarfrez Ahmed, D. S. Mahra, Ad vs. for the Respondents. 
960 
ASHOK KUMAR GIRi v. GOVT. OF INDIA AND ORS. 
961 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
A 
ORDER 
Leave granted. 
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. N.K. Kaul, learned 
Additional Solicitor General oflndia for the respondents. 
By the impugned order, the Division Bench of the High Court of 
Patna, while taking note of the fact, namely, the number of vacancies 
which were sought to be filled up at the instance of Respondent Nos.2 
and 3, took the view that based on lhe vacancies notified when the 3% 
reservation provided for under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal 
Opportunity, Protection ofRights and Full Protection)Act, 1995, since it 
worked out to 0.27 post there was no scope to reserve any post under 
the said category. With that view, the Division Bench declined to grant 
any relief to the appellant to claim reservation as a disabled person falling 
under the definition of the said Act. At the time, when this special leave 
petition was moved before us, taking note of the legal position, namely, 
3% reservation for the disabled persons can only be at the first instance 
ascertained based on the cadre strength and not based on the vacancies, 
while issuing notice, we directed the parties to examine the said legal 
position. In fact, subsequently, Mr. Kaul, himself, when he appeared on 
16.12.2015, came forward to examine the legal position in the light of 
Three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Union ofJndia and Another 
v. Nalional Federation of the Blind and Others, reported in (2013) 
10 sec 772. 
Today, when this appeal was heard, the learned Additional Solicitor 
General fairly pointed out the ratio laid down by this Court as set out in 
paragraph 30, which reads as under:-
"30. The question for determination raised in this case is whether 
the reservation provided for the disabled persons under Section 
33 of the Act is dependent upon the identification of posts as 
stipulated by Section 32. In Ravi Prakash case, the Government 
of India sought to contend that since they have conducted the 
exercise of identification of posts in civil services in terms of Section 
32 only in the year 2005, the reservation has to be computed and 
appHed only with reference to the vacancies filled up from 2005 
onwards and not from 1996 when the Act came into force. This 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
962 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Court, after examining the inter-dependence of Sections 32 and 
33 viz., .i.dentification of posts and the scheme of reservation, 
rejected this contention and held as follows:-
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
"25 .... The submission made on behalf of the Union of India 
regarding the implementation of the provisions of Section J3 
of the Disabilities Act, 1995, only after identification of posts 
suitable for such appointment, under Section 32 thereof, runs 
counter to the legislative intent with which the Act was enacted. 
To accept such a submission would amount to accepting a 
situation where the provisions of Section 33 of the aforesaid 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.