Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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