Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bomaby HC Judgement Dated 04.12.2013 - National Confederation For Development of Disabled Anr
Bomaby HC Judgement Dated 04.12.2013 - National Confederation For Development of Disabled Anr
kambli
pil-106-10
ORDINARYORIGINALCIVILJURISDICTION
rt
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBOMBAY
C
ou
PUBLICINTERESTLITIGATIONNO.106OF2010
NationalConfederationforDevelopment
ofDisabledandanother
...Petitioners
v/s.
UnionofIndiaandors.
...Respondents
ig
h
ba
y
DATE:
MOHITS.SHAH,C.J.&
M.S.SANKLECHA,J.
4December2013
P.C.:
om
Byconsentofparties,petitionistakenupforfinalhearing.
2.
kambli
pil-106-10
Thispetitionwasfiledon8December2010.
4.
C
ou
rt
3.
UnionPublicServiceCommissionon1March2011andintheaffidavit
inreply dated 20 April 2012 filed by Under Secretary in the
Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, it was
contended that provisions of Section 33 of PWD Act provides for
ig
h
thatsuchreservationisapplicableforpersonswithdisabilitiesinGroup
CandGroupDasprovidedintheOfficeMemorandumdated20
November1989andinthesubsequentOfficeMemorandumdated29
ba
y
om
personswithdisabilities. Itis,therefore,submittedthatreservations
for persons with disabilities were never available in Group A and
GroupBposts.Itisfurthercontendedthatthewholeschemeofthe
cadre management of officers appointed by promotion to the
promotionquotaofanAllIndiaServiceisquitedifferentinnaturefrom
the scheme of things as are generally prevailing in the matter of
promotionwithinthesameservicefromaGroupB/GroupApostto
aGroupAposts.
2 of 6
kambli
5.
pil-106-10
Inanyviewofthematter,nothingisbroughttoournotice
rt
indicatingthatpostsintheIndianAdministrativeServicesareexcluded
C
ou
fromreservationforpersonswithdisabilities.Infact,inGovernmentof
Indiav/s.RaviPrakashGuptaandanr.(2010)7SCC626,theSupreme
Courtspecificallydealtwiththequestionofreservationinthematterof
appointment to All India Service and held that reservation was
applicabletopostsinGroupsA,B,C&D.TheSupremeCourt
confirmedthedecisionoftheHighCourtandissuedmandamustothe
ig
h
CentralGovernmenttoofferthewritpetitionerappointmenttooneof
the reserved posts by issuing appropriate appointment order in the
6.
IndianAdministrativeServices.
InthesaiddecisiontheSupremeCourtalsonotedinparas
20and26thatneitherSection32norSection33ofthePWDActmake
ba
y
om
said section, having regard to the type of work carried out in any
departmentorestablishment. Nosuchexemptionwasbroughttothe
noticeoftheSupremeCourtonbehalfoftheGovernmentofIndia.Nor
hasanysuchexemptionbeenbroughttoournotice.
7.
Inviewoftheabove,wehavetoproceedonthebasisthat
thereservationisavailableforGroupAandGroupBpostsaswelland
thesamewould,therefore,includepostsintheIndianAdministrative
Services.
3 of 6
kambli
8.
pil-106-10
rt
submitsthattheabovedecisionwouldnotnecessarilymeanthatthe
C
ou
Learnedcounselforthepetitionershas,thereupon,invited
ig
h
10.
&ors.,dated8October2013.
CourthasintermsheldthatSection33oftheActestablishesvividly
ba
y
theintentionofthelegislatureviz.,reservationof3%fordifferently
abledpersonshastobecomputedonthebasisoftotalvacanciesinthe
strengthofacadreandnotjustonthebasisofthevacanciesavailable
om
intheidentifiedposts.TheSupremeCourtanalyzedtheprovisionsof
Section33oftheActandarrivedatthefollowingconclusion:
Thus,afterthoughtfulconsideration,weareoftheviewthatthe
computationofreservationforpersonswithdisabilitieshastobe
computedincaseofGroupA,B,CandDpostsinanidentical
manner viz., computing 3% reservation on total number of
vacancies in the cadre strength which is the intention of the
legislature. Accordingly, certain clauses in the OM dated 29
December2005,whicharecontrarytotheabovereasoningare
struckdownandwedirecttheappropriateGovernmenttoissue
new Office Memorandum(s) in consistent with the decision
renderedbythisCourt.
(emphasissupplied)
4 of 6
kambli
11.
pil-106-10
InviewoftheaforesaiddecisionoftheSupremeCourt,it
rt
C
ou
numberofvacanciesinthecadrestrengthand,therefore,nodistinction
canbemadebetweenthepoststobefilledinbydirectrecruitmentand
bypromotion.Totalnumberofvacanciesinthecadrestrengthwould
includethevacanciestobefilledinbynominationandvacanciestobe
filledinbypromotion.
TheSupremeCourthasgivenfollowingdirectionstothe
ig
h
12.
reservationpolicyforthedisabledandtoprotecttheirrights:
ba
y
54.
In our opinion, in order to ensure proper
implementationofthereservationpolicyforthedisabledandto
protect their rights, it is necessary to issue the following
directions:
om
(i)
We hereby direct the appellant herein to issue an
appropriateordermodifyingtheOMdated29122005andthe
subsequentOmsconsistentwiththisCourt'sOrderwithinthree
monthsfromthedateofpassingofthisjudgment.
(ii)
We hereby direct the appropriate Government to
compute the number of vacancies available in all the
establishments and further identify the posts for disabled
persons within a period of three months from today and
implementthesamewithoutdefault.
(iii) The appellant herein shall issue instructions to all the
departments/public sector undertakings/Government companies
declaringthatthenonobservanceoftheschemeofreservationfor
personswithdisabilitiesshouldbeconsideredasanactofnon
obedience and Nodal Officer in department/public sector
undertakings/Governmentcompanies,responsiblefortheproper
strictimplementationofreservationforpersonwithdisabilities,
bedepartmentallyproceededagainstforthedefault.
5 of 6
kambli
13.
pil-106-10
rt
respondentswillhavetogivebenefitsofreservationtopersonswith
C
ou
Writpetitionis,accordinglyallowedintheaforesaidterms.
CHIEFJUSTICE
(M.S.SANKLECHA,J.)
om
ba
y
14.
ig
h
6 of 6