GOVT. OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & ANR. versus RAVI PRAKASH GUPTA & ANR.

Citation: [2010] 7 S.C.R. 851 · Decided: 07-07-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 7 S.C.R. 851 
GOVT. OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & ANR. 
v. 
RAVI PRAKASH GUPTA & ANR. 
(Special Leave Petition ( C) No. 14889 of 2009) 
JULY 7, 2010 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, 
Protection, Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - ss. 32 
and 33 - Interpretation of - Held: Reservation u/s. 33 is not C 
dependent on identification u/s. 32, though duty has been 
cast upon the Government to make appointments in the 
number of posts reserved .for the categorif!S mentioned in s. 
33 in respect of persons suffering from the disabilities - On 
facts, denial of appointment to visually impaired candidate 
D 
who cleared Civil Services Examination on the ground that 
there was only one post meant for such persons, not correct 
- On account of failure of Government to identify posts for 
persons falling within the ambit of s. 33, candidate should not 
be deprived of the benefit of his selection purportedly on the 
E 
ground that there were no available vacancies in the said 
category - High Court rightly rejected the submission that only 
- after identification of posts suitable for such appointment uls. 
32, the provisions of s. 33 could be implemented - Thus, 
order of High Court that a clear vacancy was available to which 
candidate could be accommodated on the basis of his 
position in the merit list, does not call for interference. 
F 
The respondent no. 1 was a visually handicapped 
candidate. He was declared successful in the Civil 
Services Examination and was placed at serial no. 5 of G 
the merit list of such candidates. The respondent no. 1 
was not given appointment on the ground that only one 
post was offered under the visually handicapped 
category. The respondent filed an application claiming 
851 
H 
852 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 7 S.C.R. 
A appointment under the reservation of vacancies for 
disabled categories uls. 33 of the Persons with 
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection, Rights and 
Full Participation) Act, 1995. The respondent contended 
that the said Act came into force in 1996 and if the 
8 vacancies were to be considered from the year 1996, then 
instead of one vacancy being declared for the year in 
question, there should have been at least reservation of 
3% of the posts available for the persons suffering from 
..• different kinds of disabilities which is 7 vacancies from 
C the reserved categories of disabilities and the same were 
interchangeable. The tribunal dismissed the application. 
The High Court set aside the order of the tribunal. Hence 
the appeal. 
D 
Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The respondent No.1 is eligible for 
appointment in the Civil Services after having been 
declared successful and having been placed at serial . 
no.5 in the disabled category of visually impaired 
E candidates, cannot be denied. [Para 14) [862-C) 
1.2 The submission regarding the implementation of 
the provisions of section 33 of the Persons with 
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection, Rights and 
Full Participation) Act, 1955, only after identification of 
F 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 Act could be kept deferred indefinitely 
G by bureaucratic inaction. Such a stand taken by the 
petitioners before the High Court was rightly rejected. 
Accordingly, the submission that identification of Grade 
'A' and 'B' posts in the l.A.S. was undertaken after the 
year 2005 is not Gf much substance. The High Court 
H 
GOVT. OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & ANR. v. 853 
RAVI PRAKASH GUPTA 
pointed out that neither section 32 nor section 33 of the 
A 
Act makes any distinction with regard to Grade 'A', 'B', 
'C' and 'D' posts. They only speak of identification and 
reservation of posts for people with disabilities, though 
the proviso to section 33 does empower the appropriate 
Government to exempt any establishment from the 
B 
provisions of the said Section, having regard to the type 
of work carried on in any department or establishment. 
No such exemption has been pleaded or brought to the 
notice of this Court 011 behalf of the petitioners. [Para 15] 
(862-G-H; 863-A-C] 
C 
1.3 It is only logical that, as provided in section 32 of 
the Act, posts have to be identified for reservation 

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