SIDDARAJU versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 1 S.C.R. 1175 · Decided: 15-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1175
SIDDARAJU
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1567 of 2017)
JANUARY 14-15, 2020
[ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, ANIRUDDHA BOSE
AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities, Protection of
Rights and full participation) Act, 1995 – Reservation in promotion
of persons with disabilities – A view has been taken by the Supreme
Court in Rajiv Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2016)
6 SCALE 417: (2016) 13 SCC 153: [2016] 3 SCR 407 in affirmation
– However, it was contended that the Prohibition laid down by the
majority in Indra Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1992)
Supp. 3 SCC 125 applies not only to Article 16(4) but also Article
16(1) of the Constitution of India and inference to the contrary is
not justified – Also, there was a Office Memorandum dated
29.12.2005 issued by the Government which stated that the quantum
of reservation as “2(ii) Three percent of the vacancies in case of
promotion to Group D, and Group C posts in which the element of
direct recruitment, if any, does not exceed 75%, shall be reserved
for persons with disabilities...”– The said O.M. was considered in
the Union of India and Another v. National Federation of the Blind
and others (2013) 10 SCC 772, it held that the computation of
reservation for persons with disabilities has to be computed in case
of Group A,B,C and D posts in identical manner, accordingly clauses
of O.M. dated 29.12.2005 contrary to this reasoning are struck
down – It was also held that the reservation for persons with
disabilities has nothing to do with the ceiling of 50% and hence,
Indra Sawhney is not applicable with respect to the disabled persons
– The instant batch of cases were referred to the larger Bench for
consideration – The larger Bench, held: In Rajeev Kumar Gupta &
Ors. v. Union of India & Ors (2016) 13 SCC 153 it was held the
rule of no reservation in promotions as laid down in Indra Sawhney
has no application to persons with disabilities – This judgment cannot
be faulted when it stated that Indra Sawhney dealt with a different
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 1175
1175
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1176
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
problem and, therefore, cannot be followed – Consequently, the
reference stands answered by stating that the judgment Union of
India and Another v. National Federation of the Blind and others
(2013) 10 SCC 772 as clarified in National Federation of the Blind
v. Sanjay Kothari, Secretary Department of Personnel and Training,
2015 (9) Scale 611 and the judgment in Rajeev Kumar Gupta and
others v. Union of India & Ors. (2016) 13 SCC 153 case will bind
the Union and the State Governments and must be strictly followed
notwithstanding the O.M. dated 29.12.2005, in particular.
Union of India and Another v. National Federation of
the Blind and Others, (2013) 10 SCC 772 : [2013] 9
SCR 1023; National Federation of the Blind v. Sanjay
Kothari, Secy. Deptt. of Personnel and Training, 2015
(9) Scale 611; Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Others v. Union
of India & Others (2016) 13 SCC 153 : [2016] 3 SCR
407 – held applicable.
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, (1992) Supp 3 SCC
217 : [1992] 2 Suppl. SCR 454 – held inapplicable.
Case Law Reference
[2013] 9 SCR 1023
held applicable
Paras 5,11
(2015) 9 Scale 611
held applicable
Paras 8,11
[2016] 3 SCR 407
held applicable
Paras 9,11
[1992] 2 Suppl. SCR 454
held inapplicable
Para 9
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1567
of 2017.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.03.2016 of the High Court
of  Karnataka at Bengaluru in W.P. No. 42475 of 2015 (S-CAT)
  With
Review Petition (C) No. 36 of 2017 in Civil Appeal No. 5389 of
2016, Civil Appeal Nos.  300, 299, 310 of 2020, 6092, 6095 of 2019.
Ms. Madhavi Divan, Sanjay Jain, ASGs, S.K. Rungta, Jayna
Kothari, Ms. Kiran Suri, Nakul Dewan, Sr. Advs., Shivankur Shukla,
Prashant Singh, Ms. Amita Singh Kalkal, Ms. Rukhsana Choudhury,
Ms. Vaishali Verma, Akshay Amritanshu, Arvind Kumar Sharma,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1177
Ms. Priyanka Das, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Sumit Upadhyay, Ms. Jaikriti S.
Jadeja, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Sachin Sharma, Rajan Kumar
Chourasiya, Padmesh Mishra, Arkaj Kumar, Shiv Mangal Sharma, Yuvraj
Sharma, Shirmanjal Sharma, Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Raj Bahadur,
Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Sudarshan Rajan, Dr. K.B. Sounder Rajan, Mahesh
Kumar, Ms. Meena Sehrawat, S.J. Amith, Ms. Aishwarya Kumar,
Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, Ms. Nandani Gupta, Krishna Kumar, Md. Shahid
Anwar, Zulfiqar Ali Khan, Rajan Mani, Ms. Reetu Kumar, P
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.