DAYA RAM TRIPATHI versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [1987] 1 S.C.R. 574 · Decided: 12-12-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

' 
A 
B 
DAYA RAM TRIPATHI 
v. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. 
DECEMBER 12, 1986 
[0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND V. KHALID, JJ.] 
Social Justice to physically handicapped persons-Appointment 
to the Provincial Civil Se~vice (Executive Branch) denied to the appel-
lant on the plea that 2% reservation under G.O. No. 43/1)()/6() Appt. 4 
dated 18. 7.1972 had been revoked by the Government letter dated 
c 1.3.1979--Construction and scopt of the letter dated 1.3.1979 ex-
plained-Constitution of India, 1950, Article 38. 
As far back as 1972, the Uttar Pradesh Government by G.O_ No. 
43/90/66-Apptt. 4 dated July 18, 1972 annoonced "for the 'physically 
handicapped persons, the reservation in all the services under the 
D Government shall be 2%". AU the Government Departments were 
directed to follow the policy for reservation in services accordingly. 
Later, by G.0- No. 7/4/1971-Personnel-2 dated May 20, 1978 the 
Government of Uttar Pradesh while affirming the "reservation of 2% 
posts for the. appointment of disabled persons in all the services under 
the Government", defined who a physically handicapped person was. 
E Pursuant to a letter from the Public Service Commission there was .a 
proposal not to reserve any post for disabled persons in the Provincial 
Civil Service. This proposal, however, did not result in the issuance of 
any G.O. by the Government- But the Public Service Commission was 
informed by the Government by their letter dated 1-3.1979 that none of 
the categories of disabled persons was suitable for appointment to the 
F U-P- Civil Service (Executive Branch) and no reservation for disabled 
persons might be made in the Provincial Civil (Executive Branch) 
Service- In 1981 the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 
addressed all the Secretaries lo the Government, Head of Department 
and Commissioners in Uttar Pradesh pointing out that though a provi-
sion for reservation of 2% posts was made for physically handicapped 
G persons by G_o_ No. 43/90/66 dated July 18, 1972 in the services under 
the State Government, appointments bad not been made of handicap-
ped persons in accordance with the reservation. "I:he necessity of 
maldng appointments of physically handicapped persons to the 
reserved posts was impressed upon all the Secretaries, Heads of Depart-
ments and Commissioners and it was particularly brought to their 
H attention that 1981 bad been declared as "the International Year for 
574 
-\... .. ' 
' 
,, 
.. 
-
/ 
DAYARAMTRIPATHI v. STATEOFU.P. 
575 
the physically Handicapped Persons'. It was also directed that vacan· A 
cieS should be carried forward and efforts should be made to ensure 
that the maximum number of physically handicapped persons were 
appointed. 
The appeUant, a disabled person who was successful at the com· 
blned State Services Examination held in 1982 by the· Uttar Pnidesh 
B 
Pubiic Service Commis!lion was offered the post of Manager Marketing ' 
and Economic Survey instead of a post in the Provincial Civil Service 
(Executive) Branch on the ground that the reservaticin of 2% to the 
disabled persons had been revoked by the Government letter dated 
1.3.1979. The Writ Petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the 
AUahabad High Court. Hence the appeal by special leave. 
c 
AUowing the appeal, the Court, 
Held: A perusal of the letter dated 1.3.1979 indicates that it was 
confined to "recruitment on the basis of Combined State Services 
Examination, 1978". It was not intended to be an amendment of G.O. 
No. 43/90/66 dated July 18, 1972 or G.O. No. 7/4/1971 dated May 20, 
1978. It was not intended to depart from general rule of reservation of 
2% posts in favour of disabled persons in the case of the Provincial Civil 
Service (Executive Branch). Further in the face of the communication 
in 1981 by the Chief Secretary drawing attention of aU departments to 
the G.O. 1972, it is now futile for the Government to contend that the 
appeUant cannot be appointed to the Provincial Civil Service (Executive 
Branch). Having announced very rightly their determination to rehabi-
litate j)hysicaUy handicapped persons, by reserving posts for them in aU 
the services of the Government, the Government cannot now create 
needless hurdles. (S77C-H) · 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4460 
of 1986. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.10.1985 of the Allaha-
bad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5440 of 1983. 
S.N. Kacker and J.M: Khanna for the Appellant: 
Anil D
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.