Page 1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4476 OF 2016

[Arising out of SLP(C) No.34858 of 2014]

ASHOK KUMAR GIRI   …APPELLANT VERSUS

GOVT. OF INDIA AND ORS.             …RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

Leave granted.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and  

Mr.  N.K.  Kaul,  learned  Additional  Solicitor  

General of India for the respondents.

By the impugned order, the Division Bench of  

the High Court of Patna, while taking note of the  

fact, namely, the number of vacancies which were  

sought  to  be  filled  up  at  the  instance  of  

Respondent Nos.2 and 3, took the view that based  

on the vacancies notified when the 3% reservation  

provided for under the Persons with Disabilities  

CA No……………… of 2016                   1 @ SLP(C) No.34858 of 2014

Page 2

(Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full  

Protection) Act, 1995, since it worked out to 0.27  

post there was no scope to reserve any post under  

the said category. With that view, the Division  

Bench  declined  to  grant  any  relief  to  the  

appellant  to  claim  reservation  as  a  disabled  

person falling under the definition of the said  

Act. At the time, when this special leave petition  

was  moved  before  us,  taking  note  of  the  legal  

position, namely, 3% reservation for the disabled  

persons  can  only  be  at  the  first  instance  

ascertained based on the cadre strength and not  

based on the vacancies, while issuing notice, we  

directed  the  parties  to  examine  the  said  legal  

position.  In  fact,  subsequently,  Mr.  Kaul,  

himself,  when  he  appeared  on  16.12.2015,  came  

forward to examine the legal position in the light  

of  Three-Judge  Bench  decision  of  this  Court  in  

Union of India and Another v. National Federation  

CA No……………… of 2016                   2 @ SLP(C) No.34858 of 2014

Page 3

of the Blind and Others, reported in (2013) 10 SCC  772.  

Today, when this appeal was heard, the learned  

Additional  Solicitor  General  fairly  pointed  out  

the ratio laid down by this Court as set out in  

paragraph 30, which reads as under:-

“30. The question for determination raised  in  this  case  is  whether  the  reservation  provided  for  the  disabled  persons  under  Section 33 of the Act is dependent upon  the identification of posts as stipulated  by Section 32. In Ravi Prakash case, the  Government of India sought to contend that  since they have conducted the exercise of  identification of posts in civil services  in terms of Section 32 only in the year  2005, the reservation has to be computed  and  applied  only  with  reference  to  the  vacancies filled up from 2005 onwards and  not  from  1996  when  the  Act  came  into  force.  This  Court,  after  examining  the  inter-dependence  of  Sections  32  and  33  viz.,  identification  of  posts  and  the  scheme  of  reservation,  rejected  this  contention and held as follows:-

“25. …The submission made on behalf of  the  Union  of  India  regarding  the  implementation  of  the  provisions  of  Section  33  of  the  Disabilities  Act,  1995,  only  after  identification  of  posts  suitable  for  such  appointment,  under Section 32 thereof, runs counter  

CA No……………… of 2016                   3 @ SLP(C) No.34858 of 2014

Page 4

to the legislative intent with which  the Act was enacted. To accept such a  submission would amount to accepting a  situation  where  the  provisions  of  Section 33 of the aforesaid Act could  be  kept  deferred  indefinitely  by  bureaucratic  inaction.  Such  a  stand  taken  by  the  petitioners  before  the  High  Court  was  rightly  rejected.  Accordingly,  the  submission  made  on  behalf  of  the  Union  of  India  that  identification of Groups A and B posts  in the I.A.S. was undertaken after the  year 2005 is not of much substance. 26.  As  has  been  pointed  out  by  the  High  Court,  neither  Section  32  nor  Section 33 of the aforesaid Act makes  any distinction with regard to Groups  A, B, C and D posts. They only speak  of  identification  and  reservation  of  posts  for  people  with  disabilities,  though the proviso to Section 33 does  empower the appropriate Government to  exempt  any  establishment  from  the  provisions of the said Section, having  regard to the type of work carried on  in any department or establishment. No  such  exemption  has  been  pleaded  or  brought to our notice on behalf of the  petitioners. 27.  It  is  only  logical  that,  as  provided  in  Section  32  of  the  aforesaid  Act,  posts  have  to  be  identified  for  reservation  for  the  purpose  of  Section  33,  but  such  identification  was  meant  to  be  simultaneously  undertaken  with  the  coming into operation of the Act, to  give  effect  to  the  provisions  of  

CA No……………… of 2016                   4 @ SLP(C) No.34858 of 2014

Page 5

Section  33.  The  legislature  never  intended the provisions of Section 32  of the Act to be used as a tool to  deny  the  benefits  of  Section  33  to  these  categories  of  disabled  persons  indicated  therein.  Such  a  submission  strikes  at  the  foundation  of  the  provisions relating to the duty cast  upon  the  appropriate  Government  to  make  appointments  in  every  establishment.

Xxx xxx

29.  While  it  cannot  be  denied  that  unless  posts  are  identified  for  the  purposes  of  Section  33  of  the  aforesaid  Act,  no  appointments  from  the  reserved  categories  contained  therein can be made, and that to such  extent  the  provisions  of  Section  33  are  dependent  on  Section  32  of  the  Act, as submitted by the learned ASG,  but  the  extent  of  such  dependence  would  be  for  the  purpose  of  making  appointments and not for the purpose  of making reservation. In other words,  reservation  under  Section  33  of  the  Act  is  not  dependent  on  identification, as urged on behalf of  the Union of India, though a duty has  been  cast  upon  the  appropriate  Government to make appointments in the  number of posts reserved for the three  categories mentioned in Section 33 of  the  Act  in  respect  of  persons  suffering from the disabilities spelt  out therein. In fact, a situation has  also been noticed where on account of  non-availability of candidates some of  

CA No……………… of 2016                   5 @ SLP(C) No.34858 of 2014

Page 6

the reserved posts could remain vacant  in  a  given  year.  For  meeting  such  eventualities,  provision  was  made  to  carry forward such vacancies for two  years  after  which  they  would  lapse.  Since  in  the  instant  case  such  a  situation did not arise and posts were  not reserved under Section 33 of the  Disabilities  Act,  1995,  the  question  of  carrying  forward  of  vacancies  or  lapse thereof, does not arise.

Xxx xxx xxx

31. We, therefore, see no reason to  interfere  with  the  judgment  of  the  High  Court  impugned  in  the  Special  Leave Petition which is, accordingly,  dismissed  with  costs.  All  interim  orders  are  vacated.  The  petitioners  are given eight weeks’ time from today  to give effect to the directions of  the High Court.”

Having  regard  to  the  said  authoritative  

pronouncement by this Court that 3% reservation  

for  differently  abled  persons  will  have  to  be  

computed on the basis of total vacancies of the  

cadre  and  not  on  the  basis  of  the  vacancies  

available in the identified post, namely, at the  

time of notification calling for applications to  

CA No……………… of 2016                   6 @ SLP(C) No.34858 of 2014

Page 7

fill  up  the  available  vacant  vacancies,  it  is  

imperative for the High Court to examine the said  

position by applying the various deliberations and  

reasoning  drawn  in  the  above  decision  of  this  

Court and also by calling upon the parties, in  

particular, the respondents herein to furnish the  

details  as  regards  the  cadre  strength  and  the  

available vacancies, if any, to be provided for in  

the  respective  reserved  posts.  In  the  light  of  

above  judgment,  based  on  such  additional  

information to be furnished by the respondents as  

well as any information to be furnished on behalf  

of the appellant, it will be appropriate for the  

Division Bench to come to a definite conclusion,  

whether or not the appellant will be entitled for  

any relief to be granted in the writ petition.

Therefore,  while setting  aside the  impugned  

judgment, remit the case back to the High Court  

for  deciding  the  writ  petition  afresh,  in  the  

CA No……………… of 2016                   7 @ SLP(C) No.34858 of 2014

Page 8

light of the judgment of this Court referred to  

above.

With  the above  observations and  directions,  

the appeal stands disposed of.

................................J. [Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla]

................................J. [S.A. Bobde]

New Delhi; April 27, 2016

CA No……………… of 2016                   8 @ SLP(C) No.34858 of 2014