MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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