Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

Reservation in Promotions Extends to Grade-II Positions Under Disabilities Act: Gauhati High Court Quashes Restriction on PwD Reservation to Lower Grades

06 November 2024 8:00 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Gauhati High Court, presided by Justice Kardak Ete, addressing the right of Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwD) to reservations in promotions in higher-grade posts. The court held that the Assam government's Office Memorandum restricting PwD reservations to Grade-III and Grade-IV posts was in violation of Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which mandates a 4% reservation across all grades. Consequently, the court ordered the Assam Public Works Department (PWD) to retroactively consider promotions for the petitioners to the position of Assistant Engineer (Civil) under the PwD quota.
The petitioners, Junior Engineers (Civil) in the Assam PWD, sought directions to implement the 4% PwD reservation in promotions to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), a Grade-II post. They challenged the Assam government’s Office Memorandum dated January 17, 2019, which limited reservation in promotions for PwDs to Grade-III and IV posts. The petitioners argued that this restriction was contrary to Section 34 of the Disabilities Act, which mandates reservation in "each group of posts" in government establishments. They contended that they were eligible for promotion under the PwD quota but were denied consideration due to this restrictive policy.
Reservation in Promotion for PwDs under Section 34 of the Disabilities Act, 2016: The primary issue was whether the PwD reservation in promotions extended to Grade-II posts, including Assistant Engineer (Civil), in the Assam PWD. The court examined Section 34 of the Disabilities Act, which mandates a 4% reservation for PwDs in "each group of posts" across government establishments. It ruled that the Office Memorandum limiting this reservation to lower grades violated the statute and the legislative intent of the Disabilities Act.
“The petitioners are entitled to consideration for promotion under the PwD quota, and the respondent authorities must adhere to the Disabilities Act by applying the 4% reservation to all grades including Grade-II,” the court stated [Paras 6-9, 33-34].
Backlog and Carry Forward of PwD Vacancies Under Section 34(2): The petitioners argued that despite promotions in 2021 and 2022, the Assam PWD did not implement the PwD quota in these promotion rounds, thus creating a backlog. Citing Section 34(2), which requires carrying forward unfilled vacancies for PwDs, the court held that the respondent authorities were obligated to retroactively consider the petitioners for promotion under the PwD quota.
“Respondents must retroactively consider petitioners for promotion under the benchmark disabilities quota, effective from the date of prior promotions in 2021, ensuring compliance with Section 34(2),” observed the court [Paras 24, 30-31].
Right to Reservation in Promotion as Affirmed by Supreme Court Precedents: The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajeev Kumar Gupta v. Union of India, where it was held that identified posts suitable for PwDs should reserve positions for PwDs irrespective of the recruitment method. The Gauhati High Court emphasized that the denial of promotion consideration under the PwD quota contravened both statutory mandates and established legal precedents.
“Failure to consider the petitioners under the PwD quota contravenes legal mandates; thus, respondents are directed to evaluate promotion eligibility of petitioners under PwD reservation retrospectively,” stated the court [Paras 31-32].
The High Court quashed the Assam government’s Office Memorandum dated January 17, 2019, to the extent that it limited PwD reservation in promotions to Grade-III and IV posts. It directed the Assam PWD to apply the 4% reservation for PwDs to all posts, including Grade-II positions, in accordance with the Disabilities Act. Additionally, the court ordered the respondent authorities to retroactively consider the petitioners for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) with effect from 2021, ensuring compliance with the 4% PwD quota.
Quashing of Restrictive Office Memorandum: The January 17, 2019, Office Memorandum restricting PwD reservation to Grade-III and IV posts is declared invalid for violating the Disabilities Act.
Retrospective Promotion Consideration: The Assam PWD is directed to retroactively consider the petitioners for promotion to Assistant Engineer (Civil) under the PwD quota from 2021.
Compliance with Disabilities Act: The respondent authorities are instructed to apply the 4% reservation for PwDs across all grades, including Grade-II, as mandated by the Disabilities Act.
The judgment in Dul Malla Buzar Baruah v. State of Assam reaffirms the rights of PwDs to reservation in promotions across all grades under the Disabilities Act, 2016. By striking down the Assam government's restriction on PwD reservation to lower-grade posts, the Gauhati High Court has set a precedent for ensuring equitable promotional opportunities for disabled employees in government service. This decision underscores the judiciary's role in upholding statutory rights for marginalized groups and clarifies the scope of reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities.

Date of Decision: 05 November 2024

Latest Legal News