RAJEEV KUMAR GUPTA & OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

Citation: [2016] 3 S.C.R. 407 · Decided: 30-06-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2016) 3 S.C.R. 407 
RAJEEV KUMAR GUPTA & OTHERS 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No.521 of2008) 
JUNE 30, 2016 
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.) 
A 
8 
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of 
Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - s. 2(t) 32, 33 - Office 
Memoranda No.36035116191-Estt. (SCT) dated 18.02.1997 and 
C 
No.360351312004-Estt. (RES) dated 29.12.2005 by the Department 
of Personnel and Training, Government of India wherein disabled 
deprived of the statutory benefit of 3% reservation in identified 
post falling in Group A and B posts in Prasar Bharati Corporation 
- Legality of--' Held: Memoranda is illegal and inconsistent with 
D 
the 1995 Act -.Once a post is identified, it means that persons with 
disability-PWD is fully capable of discharging the functions 
associated with the identified post, reservation u/s. 33 to an extent 
of not less than three per cent must follow - Post must be reserved 
for PWD irrespective of the mode of recruitment adopted by the 
State for filling up of the said post - Tlws, the Government directed 
E 
to extend three percent reservation to PWD in all IDENTIFIED 
POSTS in Group A and Group B, irrespective of the mode of filling 
up of such posts - Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of 
India) Act. 1990 - Office Memoranda No.36035116191-Estt. (SCT) 
dated 18.02.1997 and No.360351312004-Estt. (RES) dated 
F 
29.12.2005. 
Allowing the Writ petition and disposing of the Civil appeal, 
the Court 
HELD: 1. The impugned memoranda as illegal and 
inconsistent with the Persons with Disabilities (Equal 
Opportunities, Protection of. Rights and Full Participation) Act, 
1995. The Government is directed to extend three percent 
reservation to PWD in all IDENTIFIED POSTS in Group A and 
Group B, irrespective of the mode of fiIJing up of such posts. 
[Para 25) [418-G] 
407 
G 
H 
408 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 
2.1 The submission that majority opinion in *Indra Sawlmey 
must also apply to bar reservation in promotions to IDENTIFIED 
POSTS of Group A and Group B, cannot be accepted. The *Indra 
Sawlmey ruling arose in the context of reservations in favour of 
backward classes of citizens falling within the sweep of Art. 16( 4). 
The principle laid down in *Indra Sawlmey is applicable only when 
the State seeks to give preferential treatment in the matter of 
employment under State to certain classes of citizens identified 
to be a backward class. Art. 16(4) does not disable the State from 
providing differential treatment (reservations) to other classes 
of citizens u/Art. 16(1) if they otherwise deserve such treatment. 
However, for creating such preferential treatment under law, 
consistent with the mandate of Article 16(1), the State cannot 
choose any one of the factors such as caste, religion etc. 
mentioned in Article 16(1) as the basis. The basis for providing 
reservation for PWD is physical disability and not any of the 
criteria forbidden u/Art. 16(1). Thus, the rule of no reservation 
in promotions as laid down in *Indra Sawlmey has clearly and 
normatively no application to the PWD. [Paras 15,16, 21] [415-
B; 416-A; 417-D-E; 418-A] 
2.2 The 1995 Act was enacted to fulfill India's obligations 
under the 'Proclamation on the Full Participation and Equality of 
the People with Disabilities in the Asia and Pacific Region'. The 
objective behind the 1995 Act is to integrate PWD into the society 
and to ensure their economic progress. The intent is to turn PWD 
into 'agents of their own destiny'. PWD arc not and cannot be 
equated with backward classes contemplated u/Art. 16(4). May 
be, certain factors are commoµ to both backward classes and 
PWD snch as social attitudes and historical neglect etc. [Para 22] 
[418-B-C] 
2.3 Admittedly low numbers of PWD (much below 3 %) are 
in government employment long years after the 1995 Act. Barriers 
to their entry must, thus, be scrutinized by rigorous standards 
withiir1he legal framework of 1995 Act. [Para 23] [418-D] 
2.4 A combined reading of Sections 32 and 33 of the 1995 
Act explicates a fine and designed balance between requirements 
of administration and the imperative to provide greater 
opportunities to PWD. Therefore, the identification exercise 
under Section 32 is crucial. Once a post is identified, it means 
RAJEEV KUMAR GUPTA & OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA & 
OTHERS 
that a PWD is fully capable of discharging the functions assoc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.