The Supreme Court Upholds Reservations in Promotions for Disabled Persons

In an interesting judgment handed down at the end of last month, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court considered the question of reservations in promotions for disabled persons.

The Prasar Bharati Corporation (a State employer) has four classes of posts – A, B, C, and D. These posts are filled up in three ways – through direct recruitment, promotion, and partly direct recruitment and partly promotion. Now, under Section 33 of the 1995 Persons With Disability Act, the Government is required to provide at least three percent reservation in “Identified Posts” for persons with disabilities. In pursuance of this, Prasar Bharati issued two office Memoranda. Certain posts in each of the four classes were selected to be the “Identified Posts”; however, while for Classes C and D, the reserved category posts could be filled up through any of the three means (promotion, recruitment, and partial promotion/recruitment), under Classes A and B, reserved posts could be filled only through recruitment. In other words, the Memoranda denied reservations in promotions to disabled employees working in Class A and Class B posts.

The legality of this denial was challenged. It was argued that since a number of posts in Class A and B were filled through promotions, effectively, disabled persons were being denied equality of opportunity.

The State’s response was this: in Indra Sawheny v Union of Indiathe Supreme Court had held that reservations in promotion were impermissible under Article 16(4). Subsequently, To get around this, Parliament then amended Article 16(4) by inserting 16(4A), which specifically authorised reservations in promotions for certain Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 16(4A), therefore, excepted only SC/STs from Indira Sawhney’s rule against reservations in promotions. That rule would continue to apply to all other classes of employees, including persons with disabilities.

The basic premise of the State’s argument, therefore, was that the authority for reservations was contained within Article 16(4) of the Constitution. If that was the case, then Indra Sawhney’s interpretation of 16(4) – that it did not allow for reservations in promotions – would hold the field, and prevent the two-judge bench from reaching a different conclusion.

The Court rejected the argument on the basis that Article 16(4) was not the authority for reservations under the Constitution. It did so by going over the history of affirmative action jurisprudence: In its earlier years, the Court had held that Article 16(4) is an exception to Article 16(1)’s guarantee of equality of opportunity. In other words, the default position is a formal equality of opportunity, and Article 16(4) specifically departs from that by permitting the State to make reservations in aid of backward classes. However, starting with Justice Subba Rao’s dissenting opinion in T. Devaadan, through N.M. Thomas, and finally in Indira Sawhney, the position changed, with the Court now taking the view that Article 16(4) was an instance of, or an emphatic expression of, Article 16(1). That is, Article 16(1) involved a commitment to substantive equality (or, in the words of Justice Mathew, proportional equality), and Article 16(4) illustrated one specific way in which that substantive equality could be achieved.

The corollary of this is that Article 16(1) not only permits, but actively contemplates, reservations. So far (to my knowledge), the Court has been circumspect about this conclusion. In the disability judgment, however, Justice Chelameswar takes the logic to its explicit conclusion. In paragraph 21, he notes that:

“Article 16(4) does not disable the State from providing differential treatment (reservations) to other classes of citizens under Article 16(1).”

He then arrives at the inescapable conclusion that:

Once a post is identified, it means that a PWD is fully capable of discharging the functions associated with the identified post. Once found to be so capable, reservation under Section 33 to an extent of not less than three per cent must follow. Once the post is identified, it must be reserved for PWD irrespective of the mode of recruitment adopted by the State for filling up of the said post.”

This judgment is a good example of how the seemingly abstract shift in the Court’s jurisprudence from “exception” to “facet”, starting with Justice Subba Rao’s radical dissent in Devadasan, to Justices Mathew and Krishna Iyer’s perceptive exploration in N.M. Thomas, and finally the culmination in Indra Sawhney, has a very tangible, real-life impact. The exception-facet shift changes the locus of reservations from 16(4) to 16(1), and allows the State to escape the straitjacket of “backward classes“, and the accompanying judicial restrictions that have crystallised over the years. This is the practical result of the transformation of the concept of equality.

That said, there are certain parts of the judgment that are slightly confusing. In paragraph 18, Justice Chelameswar observes that “the principle is that the State shall not discriminate (which normally includes preference) on the basis of any one of the factors mentioned in Article 16(1)”; then, in paragraph 21: “however, for creating such preferential treatment under law, consistent with the mandate of Article 16(1), the State cannot choose any one of the factors such as caste, religion etc. mentioned in Article 16(1) as the basis.”

These factors, however, are not found in Article 16(1), which simply guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of employment under the State. They are found in 16(2), which states that “no citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect or, any employment or office under the State…” Presumably, Justice Chelameswar meant Article 16(2). However, once it is established that the equality principle animating Article 16(1) (and therefore, by extension, Article 16(2)) is the principle of substantive equality, it is not clear to me why Article 16(2) prohibits the reservation on the basis of its stipulated markers. Surely if reservations flow from a substantive vision of equality itself (as set out in Article 16(1)), the phrase “discriminated against” in Article 16(2) is also meant to be interpreted in that substantive manner, and therefore, reservations for subordinated religions, castes (or women, for that matter) are permitted under Articles 16(1) and 16(2)?

Be that as it may, the Supreme Court’s judgment is clear, sharp, and lucid on the legal issue, and demonstrates how substantive equality operates in doctrine and practice. It will be interesting to see whether and to what extent future reservation judgments follow this model.



Filed under Reservations/Affirmative Action

15 responses to “The Supreme Court Upholds Reservations in Promotions for Disabled Persons

  1. Pingback: Weekly Update [18th-24th July 2016] | Indian Legal Scholarship Blog

  2. Sir,when will dopt make OM regarding this.this is 3rd time honerable supreme court gave judgements
    Pls do something.

    • k v apparao

      sorry finally the drama ends with open hands and contempt will also not take in account. In this issue, except supreme court all are using their disability to implement new dopt by squashing 1995 and following 2005 dopts.

  3. Chaudhari.Sharad.Ekanath

    i am disabled employee of govt.of Maharashtra working as i eligible for class2

  4. shankar singh

    there is no OM issued by dopt till date. we can just wait and pray for implementation of SC’s order by dopt, Shri Rungtaji and shri vashishtji may through some light on the matter.

  5. Mukesh Kumar Vema

    I asked to DoPT regarding resevation, DoPT has replied that they have decided to review pettition against the decision of SC

  6. Krishnaswamy

    Sir Whats the current status of DOPT appeal, and when is the next hearing of the case.

  7. s p maurya

    sir,I asked to DOPT regarding 3%reservation in promotion for disabled A and per s c judgment dt4/7/2016.dopt/e/2017/00544,04886,00101,04934,05148,05439,06482 says many difrent answer. but no OM essued till dt. MODI GOVERNMENT failed. derty politice of DOPT officers. s p maurya working AO dt.1/1/2013.

  8. J K tiwari

    Is state govt. also provides reservation to disabled ?

  9. K V Srinivasulu

    I am working as Asst. Exe. Engineer in WRD in AP, At the time of appointment I am not a handicapped person and now I became as physically handicapped person due accident now my question is I am eligible for promotion under physically handicapped quota

  10. bharat

    are their any reservation policy in epfo for disable employee in promotion if yes kindly send circular

  11. s p maurya

    sir, disabled promotion A and B. I wright to pmo pg many times than a answer is a slp 1567 pending

  12. Syed Lateef Uddin Mujahed, Senior Assistant at Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad

    can any one have a answer , whether Visually Blind candidate have more than 80 % eye sights are eligible for the post of Assistant Librarian.

  13. Horilal Singh

    Physically handicapped Central government employee ki after probition period baad home town ya near native place posting ho skti hai ?
    Plz authority hai to send kijiye.

  14. Surinder Singh

    I was fall unfortunately1998 serving in police deptt.spinal cord injured disability I have forgone promotion due to on wheel chair, caithre .Now I want insitu promotion benefit not functional promotion .Sir can I get

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s