Summary
Kerala disputed disability reservation in promotion for an employee initially appointed on compassionate grounds. Applying the 1995 Disabilities Act, the Supreme Court held that the mode of entry did not disqualify an otherwise eligible employee who had the requisite disability when considered for promotion. Statutory promotion reservation could not be defeated by absent reservation rules or delayed identification of posts, though ordinary promotional avenues and suitable identified posts remained necessary. The State's appeal was dismissed and implementation of the governing precedents directed within three months.
Issues
- Whether the 1995 Act required disability reservation in promotions despite absent reservation rules.
- Whether compassionate appointment rather than entry through the disability quota defeated eligibility.
Provisions considered
- Sections 32 and 33, Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995Reservation extended to identified promotional posts; the State could not defeat the statutory entitlement by failing to identify posts or frame reservation rules. (¶¶ 5, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 26, 29)
- Section 47, Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995Equal career opportunities and non-discrimination informed the construction of promotion rights and the need to address stagnation where functional limitations affected available promotional posts. (¶¶ 13, 14, 21, 22, 25, 27)
Held
- Under the 1995 Act, disability reservation applied irrespective of whether posts were filled through direct recruitment or promotion. Ordinary rules had to provide an avenue from the feeder cadre, and suitable posts had to be identified; there was no entitlement to promotion outside the service rules merely because of disability. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
- Identification was a prerequisite, but the State could not frustrate reservation by refusing to fulfil it. Nor could absence of specific promotion-reservation rules defeat a right flowing from the Act. Genuine functional limitations could require exploring other ways to address stagnation. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 22, 25)
- Eligibility depended on disability at the time of consideration, not whether original recruitment was through the disability quota. Compassionate appointment therefore did not justify denying the respondent consideration; the Court preserved consideration subject to other eligible disabled candidates' seniority. (¶¶ 26, 27)
- The respondent's High Court relief was not disturbed. Kerala was directed to implement Rajeev Kumar Gupta and Siddaraju, identify posts and provide promotion reservation within three months. The decision addressed claims under the 1995 Act, without resolving the separate clarification concerning the 2016 Act's proviso. (¶¶ 3, 10, 11, 29, 30, 31)
Result
State appeal dismissed; respondent's relief preserved and Kerala directed to implement disability reservation in promotions after identifying posts within three months.