Summary
The Supreme Court answered the reference by reaffirming disability reservation in promotion under the 1995 Act and requiring Union and State governments to follow the identified precedents despite the inconsistent 2005 Office Memorandum. Indra Sawhney’s restriction concerning backward-class promotion reservation did not govern this distinct disability scheme. The connected cases received separate directions, including restoration of a contempt proceeding and liberty to challenge a post-identification decision; roster implementation was not prescribed.
Issues
- Whether the prohibition relied on from Indra Sawhney displaced the precedents permitting promotion reservation for persons with disabilities.
Provisions considered
- Sections 32 and 33, Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995Identification of suitable posts and statutory reservation applied irrespective of the mode of filling identified posts, consistently with the reaffirmed precedents. (¶¶ 4, 9, 10, 11)
Held
- Indra Sawhney addressed a different reservation context and did not undermine Rajeev Kumar Gupta’s ruling concerning persons with disabilities. The 2013 National Federation judgment, its Sanjay Kothari clarification and Rajeev Kumar Gupta bound the Union and States and had to be followed despite the contrary 2005 memorandum. (¶¶ 5, 8, 9, 10, 11)
- The lead case’s CAT and High Court orders could not stand where the memorandum had been applied without the governing precedents. In the separate contempt-related appeal, the High Court’s reading of the clarification was incorrect; the petition was restored for merits adjudication rather than contempt being found by this judgment. (¶¶ 13, 17)
- The Executive Engineer appellant retained liberty to challenge the internal committee’s post-identification findings because the expert-committee point had not been argued in the cross-appeals. If successful, the reaffirmed precedents would apply. No particular roster method was directed in the separate two-post case. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 24, 25)
Result
Reference answered affirming the stated precedents. Lead CAT and High Court orders set aside; contempt petition in the appeal from SLP(C)11632/2017 restored. Review and specified connected appeals dismissed; post-identification challenge liberty preserved in the appeal from SLP(C)4650/2019. Interim order in Civil Appeal6092/2019 vacated. Matters disposed of in their stated terms.