D. SUDHAKAR versus STATE OF A.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 861 · Decided: 28-03-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MADAN B. LOKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 2 S.C.R. 861 
D. SUDHAKAR 
v. 
STATE OF A.P. & ORS. 
(Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 19898 of 2014) 
MARCH 28, 2016 
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND S. A. BOBDE, JJ.] 
Indian Ad111inistralive Service (Appointment by Selection) 
Regulations, 1997: Petitioner Regional Transport Officer and 
belonging to the Scheduled Caste community and also physically 
handicapped (Ortho) - Seeking consideration of his appointment 
to the !AS against Non State Civil Services Officers Quota - Not 
selected - Grievance of petitioner that Act ()f 1995 u/s.33 provided 
3% reservation for persons with disabilities - Petitioner approached 
CAT challenging the selection of 15 candidates by the Selection 
Committee for consideration for appoint111e11t in the !AS - Tribunal 
held that the shortlisting process by Selection Commillee ll'as not at 
all satisfactory and therefore short listing of 15 candidates was set 
aside - Tribunal however held that there is no provision ji1r 
reservation in the 1997 Regulations and 1954 Rules and the 
petitioner had not made out any case for being short listed for 
selection - Writ petition - High Court dismissed writ petition holding 
that in view of the fact that Supreme Court decision in Naticmal 
Federation of the Blind and a111endment of office memo dated 
29.12. 2005 is prospective .and that amendment cannot be 
retrospective to the petitioner lo consider his case under 3% 
reservation of persons with Disabilities Act - On appeal, held: The 
decision of High Court was based on completely different grounds 
than the decision of the Ti"ibunal - Injact reasons given by Tribunal 
were not even remotely. adverted to by High Court - This petition 
raises questions regarding interpretation of s.33 of PWD Act rlw 
Regulations of 1997 and Rules of 1954, this petition also relates to 
interpretation of Office Memorandum 29.12.2005 and O.M. 
3.12.2013 - Since all these issues are interlinked 11•ith the pending 
Civil appeals, leave granted and appeal tagged with C.A. 7295112 
and CA 11895114 - Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) 
Rules, 1954·- Service law - Persons with Disabilities (Equal 
Opportunities, Pr<iiection of Rig,hts m1d Full Participation) Act, 1.995. 
. 
861 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
862 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind 
(2013) 10 SCC 772: 2013 (9) SCR 1023; H.C. Sharma 
v. 
N.D.M.C 211 (2014) DLT 462; Municipal 
Corporation of Delhi v. Mano} Gupta 171 (2010) DLT 
600 - referred to. 
B 
Case Law Reference 
c 
2013 (9) SCR 1023 
referred to 
211 (2014) DLT 462 
referred to 
171 (2010) DLT 600 
referred to 
Para2 
Para 16 
Para 16 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave to Appeal 
No. 19898 of2014. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.02.2014 in W.PNo. 18563 
of 2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at 
Hyderabad. 
D 
S.K. Rungta, Sr. Adv., Prashant Singh, Kanti Kumar, Ramesh war 
E 
Prasad, Advs., for the Appellant. 
Ms. Prema Singh, Guntur Prabhakar, Advs., for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by: 
MADAN B. LO KUR, J. I. The petitioner was directly recruited 
in the Group-I services as a Regional Transport Officer in 1990 and has 
been working as Joint Transport Commissioner since 2008. The petitioner 
belongs to the Scheduled Caste community and is physically handicapped 
(Ortho). 
F 
2. The petitioner says that he has been unfairly treated for selection 
to the Indian Administrative Service (for short 'the lAS') and that he is 
entitled to the benefit of the quota for physically handicapped persons 
under S.C. category for selection under the Indian Administrative Service 
(Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997. For this, the petitioner 
places reliance on the decision of this Court in Union of India v. National 
G 
Federation of the Blind' and Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities 
(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 
1995. 
3. The background facts of the case indicate that the State of 
Andhra Pradesh had short listed the petitioner in 2002 for consideration 
H 
1 (2013) 10 sec 772 
D. SUDHAKAR v. STATE OF A.P. 
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] 
for appointment to the IAS against Non State Civil Services Officers 
quota. The petitioner was interviewed but not selected. Even thereafter, 
the petitioner was considered for appointment but was not short listed or 
selected. The petitioner says that in spite of the reservation for persons 
with disa

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