ASHOK KUMAR GIRI Vs. GOVT. OF INDIA AND ORS
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 4476 of 2016, Judgment Date: Apr 27, 2016
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4476 OF 2016
[Arising out of SLP(C) No.34858 of 2014]
ASHOK KUMAR GIRI …APPELLANT
VERSUS
GOVT. OF INDIA AND ORS. …RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. N.K. Kaul, learned
Additional Solicitor General of India for the respondents.
By the impugned order, the Division Bench of the High Court of Patna,
while taking note of the fact, namely, the number of vacancies which were
sought to be filled up at the instance of Respondent Nos.2 and 3, took the
view that based on the vacancies notified when the 3% reservation provided
for under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunity, Protection of
Rights and Full Protection) Act, 1995, since it worked out to 0.27 post
there was no scope to reserve any post under the said category. With that
view, the Division Bench declined to grant any relief to the appellant to
claim reservation as a disabled person falling under the definition of the
said Act. At the time, when this special leave petition was moved before
us, taking note of the legal position, namely, 3% reservation for the
disabled persons can only be at the first instance ascertained based on the
cadre strength and not based on the vacancies, while issuing notice, we
directed the parties to examine the said legal position. In fact,
subsequently, Mr. Kaul, himself, when he appeared on 16.12.2015, came
forward to examine the legal position in the light of Three-Judge Bench
decision of this Court in Union of India and Another v. National Federation
of the Blind and Others, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 772.
Today, when this appeal was heard, the learned Additional Solicitor
General fairly pointed out the ratio laid down by this Court as set out in
paragraph 30, which reads as under:-
“30. The question for determination raised in this case is whether the
reservation provided for the disabled persons under Section 33 of the Act
is dependent upon the identification of posts as stipulated by Section 32.
In Ravi Prakash case, the Government of India sought to contend that since
they have conducted the exercise of identification of posts in civil
services in terms of Section 32 only in the year 2005, the reservation has
to be computed and applied only with reference to the vacancies filled up
from 2005 onwards and not from 1996 when the Act came into force. This
Court, after examining the inter-dependence of Sections 32 and 33 viz.,
identification of posts and the scheme of reservation, rejected this
contention and held as follows:-
“25. …The submission made on behalf of the Union of India regarding the
implementation of the provisions of Section 33 of the Disabilities Act,
1995, only after identification of 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 aforesaid Act could
be kept deferred indefinitely by bureaucratic inaction. Such a stand taken
by the petitioners before the High Court was rightly rejected. Accordingly,
the submission made on behalf of the Union of India that identification of
Groups A and B posts in the I.A.S. was undertaken after the year 2005 is
not of much substance.
26. As has been pointed out by the High Court, neither Section 32 nor
Section 33 of the aforesaid Act makes any distinction with regard to Groups
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
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 our notice on behalf of the petitioners.
27. It is only logical that, as provided in Section 32 of the aforesaid
Act, posts have to be identified for reservation for the purpose of Section
33, but such identification was meant to be simultaneously undertaken with
the coming into operation of the Act, to give effect to the provisions of
Section 33. The legislature never intended the provisions of Section 32 of
the Act to be used as a tool to deny the benefits of Section 33 to these
categories of disabled persons indicated therein. Such a submission strikes
at the foundation of the provisions relating to the duty cast upon the
appropriate Government to make appointments in every establishment.
Xxx xxx
29. While it cannot be denied that unless posts are identified for the
purposes of Section 33 of the aforesaid Act, no appointments from the
reserved categories contained therein can be made, and that to such extent
the provisions of Section 33 are dependent on Section 32 of the Act, as
submitted by the learned ASG, but the extent of such dependence would be
for the purpose of making appointments and not for the purpose of making
reservation. In other words, reservation under Section 33 of the Act is not
dependent on identification, as urged on behalf of the Union of India,
though a duty has been cast upon the appropriate Government to make
appointments in the number of posts reserved for the three categories
mentioned in Section 33 of the Act in respect of persons suffering from the
disabilities spelt out therein. In fact, a situation has also been noticed
where on account of non-availability of candidates some of the reserved
posts could remain vacant in a given year. For meeting such eventualities,
provision was made to carry forward such vacancies for two years after
which they would lapse. Since in the instant case such a situation did not
arise and posts were not reserved under Section 33 of the Disabilities Act,
1995, the question of carrying forward of vacancies or lapse thereof, does
not arise.
Xxx xxx xxx
31. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High
Court impugned in the Special Leave Petition which is, accordingly,
dismissed with costs. All interim orders are vacated. The petitioners are
given eight weeks’ time from today to give effect to the directions of the
High Court.”
Having regard to the said authoritative pronouncement by this Court
that 3% reservation for differently abled persons will have to be computed
on the basis of total vacancies of the cadre and not on the basis of the
vacancies available in the identified post, namely, at the time of
notification calling for applications to fill up the available vacant
vacancies, it is imperative for the High Court to examine the said position
by applying the various deliberations and reasoning drawn in the above
decision of this Court and also by calling upon the parties, in particular,
the respondents herein to furnish the details as regards the cadre strength
and the available vacancies, if any, to be provided for in the respective
reserved posts. In the light of above judgment, based on such additional
information to be furnished by the respondents as well as any information
to be furnished on behalf of the appellant, it will be appropriate for the
Division Bench to come to a definite conclusion, whether or not the
appellant will be entitled for any relief to be granted in the writ
petition.
Therefore, while setting aside the impugned judgment, remit the case
back to the High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh, in the light
of the judgment of this Court referred to above.
With the above observations and directions, the appeal stands
disposed of.
................................J.
[Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla]
................................J.
[S.A. Bobde]
New Delhi;
April 27, 2016