Disabled peole can’t be denied reservation promotions govt jobs supreme court docket order
Disabled persons cannot be refused reservations for transportation in government agencies: SC
The Supreme Court reiterated Monday that people with disabilities (PwD) cannot be withheld from government agency promotion as it upheld a Kerala Supreme Court ruling last year that granted a woman’s performance. The Supreme Court said that the identification of vacancies for the purpose of reservation must be done immediately under the Disabled People’s (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1995, but opposition was evident from the “delaying tactic”. Adopted by most government agencies to really get the intent done.
It said that sometimes it was easier to get a law into effect, but much more difficult to change the way society thought that would try to thwart the law’s intent.
A bank of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and R Subhash Reddy upheld the Kerala Supreme Court order dated March 9, 2020, reserving promotion to a woman with a disability.
SC Bank said, “We believe the High Court’s approach to the contested order is wholesome and does not require interference.”
The Supreme Court said that the case appears to indicate that Kerala has failed to implement the SC’s rulings in the Rajeev Kumar Gupta and others v. Union of India case (2016) and the Siddaraju v. Karnataka state (2020) case. , in which it was stated that the reservation against PwD would also apply to promotions in government agencies.
The bank said, “We therefore deem it appropriate to issue instructions to the state of Kerala to implement these rulings and to place a promotion reservation on all entities after those entities are identified. This check should be completed within three months. “
It states: “We are making it time-bound so that the mandate of the law (The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995) is not again frustrated by using Section 32 as an excuse after I identify the post. “
The higher court found that the Disability Rights Act of 2016 now regulates the handling of the reservation aspect in funding.
It addressed the question of whether the reservation under the provisions of the 1995 Act is dependent on the legally required identification of bodies.
The Supreme Court said it was hardly the legislature’s intention to use the provisions of the law as a tool to thwart the benefits of the reservation under the 1995 law.
“Indeed, the identification of locations for reservation purposes had to be done immediately under the 1995 law. Resistance to such a reservation is evident from the delaying tactics of most government agencies in actually implementing the intent.It is easier to enact laws, but far more difficult to change the mindset of society that would try to find ways and means to thwart the intent of the enacted law, and Section 32 was a classic example of this, “the bank said.
The Supreme Court had appointed Senior Attorney Gaurav Agrawal amicus curiae to assist him on this matter and raised four questions, including whether the 1995 law imposed reservations on the carriage of people with disabilities?
It states: “The legislative mandate must be understood in context as it offers equal opportunities for professional advancement, including promotion.
Thus, it would be a negative of the legal mandate if PwD refused the promotion and such a reservation were limited to the initial phase of the service.
This would in fact lead to a stagnation of the disabled with a resultant frustration. “
The total number of cadre-level vacancies would thus include both nomination and promotion positions, and “in our view this should settle the controversy insofar as the 1995 mandate concerns Act qua Promotion”.
It said the SC had ordered positions to be identified for reservation purposes in its previous judgments and a PwD should be considered for promotion along with other people working on the feeder roster.
It said there could be no method of overcoming the promotion reservation and once that item was identified the logical conclusion would be that it would be reserved for PwD who have been promoted.
The Supreme Court stated that the 1995 Act made no distinction between a person who may have entered the service because of a disability and a person who has acquired a disability after entering the service.
“Similarly, the same position would be with the person who may have entered the service due to an entitlement to compassionate appointment.
The type of entry into service cannot be a reason to expel a discriminatory promotion, ”it said.
The Supreme Court found that the woman had been appointed as a typist in 1996 out of compassion for the police station after her brother died while on duty.
The woman asserted that she was entitled to carry all follow-up services with effect from July 1, 2002, and all follow-up services as a cashier with effect from May 20, 2012 and thereafter as Junior Superintendent with effect from the date of her entitlement.
READ MORE: Unemployment During Covid-19: Federal Bank is giving out around 400 part-time jobs in Kerala
Latest news from India
Comments are closed.