Summary
Candidates with locomotor disability applied for Safai-Karmi posts in District Mau. A U.P. Government Order of 7.5.1999 had identified sweeper posts as suitable only for deaf or partly deaf candidates, and the appellants were not appointed. The Allahabad High Court struck down the G.O. for limiting reservation on those posts to hearing impairment, but did not disturb the 2008 selection. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had misread Sections 32 and 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995. Under Section 32, the State identifies which posts suit which disability. The minimum 3% reservation under Section 33 applies to the establishment, through posts identified for each disability, not to every cadre regardless of the work involved. The order striking down the G.O. was set aside, and the appellants, being ineligible for posts not identified for their disability, got no relief.
Issues
- Whether a Government Order identifying posts of sweeper for hearing-impaired candidates only, and not for those with locomotor disability, is invalid under Sections 32 and 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.
- Whether the 3% disability reservation under Section 33 must be applied in every cadre irrespective of the identification of posts.
Provisions considered
- Section 32, Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995The State Government identifies the posts that can be filled by persons with each kind of disability. The G.O. of 7.5.1999 was such an identification, and it is open to judicial review only on recognised grounds. (¶¶ 11, 16, 17)
- Section 33, Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995Following Ravi Prakash Gupta and National Federation of the Blind, at least 3% of vacancies in the establishment are to be reserved, 1% for each category, and filled in posts identified for that category. The reservation does not apply cadre by cadre. (¶¶ 11, 13, 14, 15, 16)
Held
- The High Court wrongly held that 3% of posts in every cadre must be reserved for persons with each kind of disability regardless of whether the posts are identified. The 3% reservation applies to the establishment and not to every cadre irrespective of the nature of the work. (¶¶ 12, 15, 16)
- Identifying posts and deciding which category of disability can fill them is a power of the appropriate Government under Section 32. The State's conscious decision to identify sweeper posts for hearing-impaired candidates could not be set aside on a cursory reading. It could be interfered with only if found arbitrary, irrational or contrary to the Act's objectives. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18)
- Because Safai-Karmi posts were not identified for locomotor disability and the G.O. formed part of the advertisement, the appellants were not eligible for those reserved posts, even though they had taken the cycling test and the interview. (¶ 18)
Result
Appeal disposed of. The High Court's order striking down the G.O. dated 7.5.1999 was set aside, and the appellants' claim to appointment as Safai-Karmis failed.