Page 1

REPORTABLE        

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.9096  OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 7541 of 2009)

Union of India & Anr.                                     .... Appellant(s)

Versus

National Federation of  the Blind & Ors.                               .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T  

P. Sathasivam, CJI.

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order  

dated 19.12.2008 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi  

in  Writ  Petition (C)  No. 15828 of 2006 wherein  the High Court  

interpreted  Section  33  of  the  Persons  with  Disabilities  (Equal  

Opportunities,  Protection  of  Rights  and  Full  Participation)  Act,  

1995  (in  short  ‘the  Act’)  and  issued  various  directions  to  be  

complied with by the appellants herein.   

1

Page 2

3) Brief facts:

(a) National Federation of the Blind-Respondent No. 1 herein is  

an apex organization and a society registered under the Societies  

Registration Act, 1860, having its Head Office at New Delhi  and is  

working for the protection of the rights of the visually challenged.   

(b) In  the  year  2006,  Respondent  No.  1  herein  filed  a  writ  

petition  before  the  High  Court  in  public  interest  seeking  

implementation  of  Section  33  of  the  Act  alleging  that  the  

appellants herein have failed to provide reservation to the blind  

and low vision persons and they are virtually excluded from the  

process  of  recruitment  to  the  Government  posts  as  stipulated  

under the said Act.

(c)   In the above backdrop, it is relevant to mention that way  

back in 1977, the erstwhile Ministry of Social Welfare, Government  

of  India,  made  reservation  in  favour  of  the  following  three  

categories of disabled persons in Group C & D posts to the extent  

of  1  per  cent  each  for  the  (i)  Blind;  (ii)  Hearing  and  Speech  

Impairment; and (iii) persons suffering from locomotor disability.  

In the year 1986, the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT),  

directed all the departments to take into account both identified  

2

Page 3

and  unidentified  posts  for  working  out  the  total  number  of  

vacancies to be reserved for each of the disabled categories.  In  

spite  of  the  above  said  executive  order,  various  government  

departments and public sector undertakings did not give effect to  

the  scheme  of  reservation  which  compelled  Respondent  No.  1  

herein to organize a nation wide agitation, as a result of which, an  

agreement was arrived at between the parties on 27.08.1987 to  

undertake a Special Recruitment Drive for clearing up the backlog  

of vacancies.      

(d) On  07.02.1996,  the  Persons  with  Disabilities  (Equal  

Opportunities,  Protection  of  Rights  and  Full  Participation)  Act,  

1995  was brought into force making reservation of at  least  3  

percent posts in all government establishments to the extent of 1  

per cent each for the persons suffering from (i) blindness or low  

vision;  (ii)  hearing  impairment;  and  (iii)  locomotor  disability  or  

cerebral palsy.  After enactment of the said Act, Union of India  

issued various orders for ensuring proper implementation of the  

provisions of the Act for the persons with disabilities.  

(e) Respondent No. 1 herein,  by filing the above said petition  

before the High Court asserted that despite statutory provisions  

3

Page 4

and various executive orders, discrimination against the persons  

with disabilities  continued in  filling up the vacancies in  various  

government departments whereas it was contended by the other  

side that the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 29.12.2005, issued  

by the Department of Personnel & Training,  inter alia provides a  

system for ensuring proper implementation of the provisions of  

the Act for the persons with disabilities.

(f) Vide order dated 19.12.2008, the High Court disposed of the  

petition  directing  the  Union  of  India  to  modify  the  OM  dated  

29.12.2005 being inconsistent with the provisions of Section 33 of  

the Act and issued several other directions.   

(g) Being aggrieved of the above, the appellants have preferred  

this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.

(h) Tamil Nadu Handicapped Federation Charitable Trust, Smt S.  

Rajeswari  and  Association  for  Physically  Challenged  People  

Ordnance  Clothing  Factory  filed  applications  for  impleadment.  

Vide  order  dated 22.07.2011,  this  Court  did  not  allow them to  

implead but to act as intervenors in the proceedings.  

4) Heard Ms. Indra Jaisingh, learned Additional Solicitor General  

for the Union of India, Mr. S.K. Rungta, learned senior counsel (R-

4

Page 5

1) appearing in person and Mr. R. Prabhakaran, learned counsel  

for Intervenors.  

Submissions:

5) Ms. Indra Jaisingh, learned Additional Solicitor General for the  

Union of India, after taking us through various provisions of the  

Act and OM(s) issued by the Government of India submitted that  

the impugned judgment of the High Court is against the provisions  

of the Act.  She further pointed out that the finding of the High  

Court that in terms of Section 33 of the Act, 3% reservation for the  

disabled  persons  has  to  be  computed  on  the  basis  of  total  

strength of the cadre, i.e., both identified as well as unidentified  

posts is erroneous.  In any event, according to her, the direction of  

the  High Court  to  work out  backlog vacancies  for  the  disabled  

persons on the total  cadre strength in  different  establishments  

within one month from the date of the order is impractical and not  

executable.  It is further highlighted that according to Section 33  

of  the  Act,  reservation  to  the  persons  with  disabilities  in  an  

establishment shall be 3% of the vacancies arising in the posts  

which are identified for the persons with disabilities.   The High  

Court,  by  the  impugned  judgment,  disturbed  the  very  basic  

5

Page 6

system of the reservation of posts for the persons with disabilities.  

She further highlighted that the reservation for Group C and D  

posts is being calculated on the basis of the vacancies in identified  

as well as unidentified posts prior to the Act came into existence  

and in view of the provisions of Section 72 of the Act, continued in  

the same way, however, reservation for Group A and B posts is  

being calculated on the basis of the vacancies for identified posts  

as per the provisions of the Act.   

6) On the other hand, Mr. S.K. Rungta, learned senior counsel  

(R-1)  appearing  in  person  submitted  that  in  terms  of  the  

provisions of the Act, more particularly, Sections 32 and 33 of the  

Act, it is obligatory on the part of the Government establishments  

to  provide  at  least  3% reservation  of  posts  in  the  total  cadre  

strength and not in the identified vacancies.  He further pointed  

out  that  though  the  Act  was  passed  in  1995  since  then  the  

provisions have not  been strictly  implemented.   He  prayed for  

further time bound direction for implementation of the same.

7) Mr.  R.  Prabhakaran,  learned  counsel  for  intervenors  

reiterated the submissions made by Mr. S.K. Rungta.

6

Page 7

8) We have perused all the relevant materials and considered  

the rival submissions.

Relevant Provisions:

9)  In order to answer the rival contentions, it is desirable to  

quote the relevant provision of the Act. Sections 2(a), 2(i), 2(j) and  

2(k) of the Act read as under:

“2(a) “appropriate Government” means,- (i) in  relation  to  the  Central  Government  or  any  

establishment  wholly  or  substantially  financed  by  that  Government,  or  a  Cantonment  Board  constituted  under  the  Cantonment  Act,  1924  (2  of  1924),  the  Central  Government;  

(ii) in relation to a State Government or  any establishment  wholly  or  substantially  financed by that  Government  or  any local authority, other than a Cantonment Board, the  State Government;  

(iii) in respect of the Central Co-ordination Committee and the  Central Executive Committee, the Central Government;  

(iv) in respect of the State Co-ordination Committee and the  State Executive Committee, the State Government;   

2(i) "Disability" means- (i) blindness; (ii) low vision; (iii) leprosy-cured; (iv) hearing impairment; (v) locomotor disability; (vi) mental retardation; (vii) mental illness;

7

Page 8

2(j) "employer" means,- (i) in relation to a Government, the authority notified by  

the Head of the Department in this behalf or where no  such authority is notified, the Head of the Department;  and

(ii) in  relation  to  an  establishment,  the  Chief  Executive  Officer of that establishment;

2(k) "establishment"  means  a  corporation  established  by  or  under  a  Central,  Provincial  or  State  Act,  or  an  authority  or  a  body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a local  authority or a Government company as defined in section 617 of  the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) and includes Departments  of a Government;”

10) Among the above definitions, we are more concerned with  

the definition of “establishment” under Section 2(k)  of the Act,  

which  is  an  exhaustive  definition  and  covers  (i)  a  corporation  

established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or (ii) an  

authority  or  a  body  owned  or  controlled  or  aided  by  the  

Government or a local authority, or (iii) a Government company as  

defined  in  Section  617  of  the  Companies  Act,  1956  and  (iv)  

Departments of a Government.

11) Chapter VI of the Act deals with the employment of persons  

with disabilities.  The relevant Sections of the said Chapter are as  

under:-  

“32.  Identification  of  posts  which  can  be  reserved  for  persons with disabilities. - Appropriate Governments shall-

8

Page 9

(a)identify  posts,  in  the  establishments,  which  can  be  reserved for the persons with disability; (b)at periodical  intervals  not exceeding three years,  review  the  list  of  posts  identified  and  up-date  the  list  taking  into  consideration the developments in technology.

33.  Reservation  of  Posts  - Every  appropriate  Government  shall  appoint  in  every  establishment  such  percentage  of  vacancies not less than three per cent for  persons or class of  persons  with  disability  of  which  one  per  cent  each  shall  be  reserved for persons suffering from-

(i) blindness or low vision; (ii) hearing impairment; (iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy,  

in the posts identified for each disability:

Provided  that  the  appropriate  Government  may,  having  regard  to  the  type  of  work  carried  on  in  any  department  or  establishment, by notification subject to such conditions, if any,  as  may  be  specified  in  such  notification,  exempt  any  establishment from the provisions of this section. 36. Vacancies not filled up to be carried forward.-  Where  in any recruitment year any vacancy under section 33, cannot  be  filled  up  due  to  non-availability  of  a  suitable  person  with  disability or, for any other sufficient reason, such vacancy shall  be carried forward in the succeeding recruitment year and if in  the  succeeding  recruitment  year  also  suitable  person  with  disability  is not available,  it  may first  be filled by interchange  among the three categories and only when there is no person  with disability available for the post in that year, the employer  shall fill up the vacancy by appointment of a person, other than  a person with disability:

Provided  that  if  the  nature  of  vacancies  in  an  establishment is such that a given category of person cannot be  employed, the vacancies may be interchanged among the three  categories  with  the  prior  approval  of  the  appropriate  Government.”

12) In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and  

(2) of Section 73 of the Act, the Central Government enacted the  

9

Page 10

Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights  

and Full Participation) Rules, 1996.

13) After enactment of the above Act, in order to consolidate the  

existing  instructions  in  line  with  the  provisions  of  the  Act,  on  

29.12.2005, Government of India, Department of Personnel and  

Training,  issued  certain  instructions  by  way  of  an  Office  

Memorandum (OM), with regard to the reservation for the persons  

with  disabilities  (physically  handicapped  persons)  in  posts  and  

services.  The said Office Memorandum specifically states that it  

shall supersede all previous instructions issued on the subject so  

far.  Respondent No. 1 herein has commended various clauses of  

the OM dated 29.12.2005.  The relevant clauses of the same are  

extracted hereinbelow:

“2. QUANTUM OF RESERVATION

(i) Three  percent  of  the  vacancies,  in  case  of  direct  recruitment to Group A, B, C and D posts shall be reserved for  persons  with  disabilities  of  which  one  per  cent  each shall  be  reserved for persons suffering from (i) blindness or low vision,  (ii) hearing impairment and (iii) locomotor disability or cerebral  palsy in the posts identified for each disability;

(ii) Three  percent  of  the  vacancies  in  case of  promotion  to  Group  D,  and  Group  C  posts  in  which  the  element  of  direct  recruitment, if any, does not exceed 75%, shall be reserved for  persons  with  disabilities  of  which  one  per  cent  each shall  be  

10

Page 11

reserved for persons suffering from (i) blindness or low vision,  (ii) hearing impairment and (iii) locomotor disability or cerebral  palsy in the posts identified for each disability.

3. EXEMPTION FROM RESERVATION:  

If any Department/Ministry considers it necessary to exempt any  establishment partly or fully from the provisions of reservation  for persons with disabilities of which one percent each shall be  reserved for persons suffering from (i) blindness or low vision,  (ii) hearing impairment and (iii) locomotor disability or cerebral  palsy in the posts identified for each disability,  it may make a  reference  to  the  Ministry  of  Social  Justice  and  Employment  giving full justification for the proposal. The grant of exemption  shall be considered by an Inter-Departmental Committee set up  by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.

4. IDENTIFICATION OF JOBS/POSTS:  

The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment have identified  the  jobs/posts  suitable  to  be  held  by  persons  with  disabilities  and the physical requirement for all such jobs/posts vide their  notification  no.  16-25/99.NII  dated  31.5.2001.  The  jobs/posts  given in Annexure II  of the said notification as amended from  time  to  time  shall  be  used  to  give  effect  to  3  per  cent  reservation to the persons with disabilities. It may, however, be  noted that:

(a) The nomenclature  used for  any job/post  shall  mean and  include  nomenclature  used  for  other  comparable  jobs/posts  having identical functions.

(b) The  list  of  jobs/posts  notified  by  the  Ministry  of  Social  Justice  &  Empowerment  is  not  exhaustive.  The  concerned  Ministries/Departments  shall  have  the  discretion  to  identify  jobs/posts in addition to the jobs/posts already identified by the  Ministry  of  Social  Justice  &  Empowerment.  However,  no  

11

Page 12

Ministry/Department/Establishment shall  exclude any identified  job/post from the purview of reservation at its own discretion.

(c) If  a  job/post  identified  for  persons  with  disabilities  is  shifted from one group or grade to another group or grade due  to  change  in  the  pay-scale  or  otherwise,  the  job/post  shall  remain identified.

13. COMPUTATION OF RESERVATION:  

Reservation for persons with disabilities in case of Group C and  Group D posts shall be computed on the basis of total number of  vacancies occurring in all Group C or Group D posts, as the case  may be, in the establishment, although the recruitment of the  persons  with  disabilities  would  only  be in  the  posts  identified  suitable for them. The number of vacancies to be reserved for  the  persons  with  disabilities  in  case  of  direct  recruitment  to  Group C posts in an establishment shall be computed by taking  into account the total  number of vacancies arising in Group C  posts for being filled by direct recruitment in a recruitment year  both  in  the  identified  and  non-identified  posts  under  the  establishment.  The  same  procedure  shall  apply  for  Group  D  posts. Similarly, all vacancies in promotion quota shall be taken  into account while computing reservation in promotion in Group  C and Group D posts.  Since reservation is limited to identified  posts only  and number  of  vacancies reserved is computed on  the  basis  of  total  vacancies  (in  identified  posts  as  well  as  unidentified  posts),  it  is  possible  that  number  of  persons  appointed by reservation  in an identified  posts may exceed 3  percent.

14.  Reservation  for  persons  with  disabilities  in  Group  A posts  shall be computed on the basis of vacancies occurring in direct  recruitment  quota  in  all  the  identified  Group  A  posts  in  the  establishment.  The  same  method  of  computation  applies  for  Group B posts.

12

Page 13

15.  EFFECTING  RESERVATION  -  MAINTENANCE  OF  ROSTERS:  

(a)  all  establishments  shall  maintain  separate  100  point  reservation roster registers in the format given in Annexure II for  determining/effecting reservation for the disabled - one each for  Group A posts filled by direct recruitment, Group B posts filled  by direct recruitment, Group C posts filled by direct recruitment,  Group C posts filled by promotion, Group D posts filled by direct  recruitment and Group D posts filled by promotion.  

(b) Each register shall have cycles of 100 points and each cycle  of 100 points shall be divided into three blocks, comprising the  following points :  

1st Block - point No.1 to point No.33

2nd Block - point No.34 to point No.66

3rd Block - point No.67 to point No.100

(c)  Points  1,  34,  and  67  of  the  roster  shall  be  earmarked  reserved for persons with disabilities - one point for each of the  three categories of  disabilities. The head of the establishment  shall decide the categories of disabilities for which the points 1,  34 and 67 will be reserved keeping in view all relevant facts.

(d)  All  the  vacancies  in  Group  C  posts  falling  in  direct  recruitment quota arising in the establishment shall be entered  in the relevant roster register. If the post falling at point No.1 is  not identified for the disabled or the head of the establishment  considers it desirable not to fill up by a disabled person or it is  not  possible to fill  up that  post  by the disabled for  any other  person, one of the vacancies falling at any of the points from 2  to 33 shall be treated as reserved for the disabled and filled as  such. Likewise a vacancy falling at any of the points from 34 to  66 or from 67 to 100 shall be filled by the disabled. The purpose  of keeping points 1, 34 and 67 as reserved is to fill up the first  available suitable vacancy from 1 to 33, first available suitable  

13

Page 14

vacancy from 34 to 66 and first available suitable vacancy from  67 to 100 persons with disabilities.

(e) There is a possibility that none of the vacancies from 1 to 33  is  suitable  for  any category  of  the  disabled.  In  that  case two  vacancies from 34 to 66 shall be filled as reserved for persons  with  disabilities.  If  the  vacancies  from  34  to  66  are  also  not  suitable  for  any  category,  three  vacancies  shall  be  filled  as  reserved from the third block containing points from 67 to 100.  This means that if no vacancy can be reserved in a particular  block, it shall be carried into the next block.

(f)  After  all  the 100 points  of  the  roster  are  covered,  a  fresh  cycle of 100 points shall start.

(g) If the number of vacancies in a year is such as to cover only  one block or two, discretion as to which category of the disabled  should  be  accommodated  first  shall  vest  in  the  head  of  the  establishment, who shall decide on the basis of the nature of the  post, the level of representation of the specific disabled category  in the concerned grade/post etc.

(h) A separate roster shall be maintained for Group C posts filled  by  promotion  and  procedure  as  explained  above  shall  be  followed  for  giving  reservation  to  persons  with  disabilities.  Likewise two separate rosters shall be maintained for Group D  posts, one for the posts filled by direct recruitment and another  for posts filled by promotion.  

(i) Reservation in Group A and Group B posts is determined on  the  basis  of  vacancies  in  the  identified  posts  only.  Separate  rosters  for  Group  A  posts  and  Group  B  posts  in  the  establishment shall be maintained. In the rosters maintained for  Group A and Group B posts, all vacancies of direct recruitment  arising in identified posts shall be entered and reservation shall  be effected the same way as explained above.

16.  INTER  SE  EXCHANGE  AND  CARRY  FORWARD  OF  RESERVATION IN CASE OF DIRECT RECRUITMENT

14

Page 15

(a) Reservation for each of the three categories of persons with  disabilities  shall  be  made  separately.  But  if  the  nature  of  vacancies in an establishment is such that a person of a specific  category of disability cannot be employed, the vacancies may be  interchanged among the three categories with the approval of  the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment and reservation  may be determined and vacancies filled accordingly.

(b) If any vacancy reserved for any category of disability cannot  be filled due to non-availability  of  a suitable person with that  disability or, for any other sufficient reason, such vacancy shall  not be filled and shall be carried forward as a 'backlog reserved  vacancy' to the subsequent recruitment year.  

(c)  In  the  subsequent  recruitment  year  the  backlog  reserved  vacancy  shall  be  treated  as  reserved  for  the  category  of  disability  for  which  it  was kept  reserved  in  the  initial  year  of  recruitment. However, if a suitable person with that disability is  not available, it may be filled by interchange among the three  categories  of  disabilities.  In  case  no  suitable  person  with  disability  is available  for  filling up the post in the subsequent  year also, the employer may fill up the vacancy by appointment  of a person other than a person with disability. If the vacancy is  filled by a person with disability of the category for which it was  reserved or by a person of other category of disability by inter  se  exchange  in  the  subsequent  recruitment  year,  it  will  be  treated to have been filled by reservation. But if the vacancy is  filled  by  a  person  other  than  a  person  with  disability  in  the  subsequent  recruitment  year,  reservation  shall  be  carried  forward  for  a  further  period  upto  two  recruitment  years  whereafter the reservation shall lapse. In these two subsequent  years,  if  situation  so  arises,  the  procedure  for  filling  up  the  reserved  vacancy  shall  be  the  same  as  followed  in  the  first  subsequent recruitment year.

19.  HORIZONTALITY  OF  RESERVATION  FOR  PERSONS  WITH DISABILITIES:  

15

Page 16

Reservation for backward classes of citizens (SCs, STs and OBCs)  is called vertical reservation and the reservation for categories  such as persons with disabilities  and ex-  servicemen is  called  horizontal  reservation.  Horizontal  reservation  cuts  across  vertical  reservation  (in  what  is called interlocking reservation)  and  person  selected  against  the  quota  for  persons  with  disabilities have to be placed in  the appropriate  category  viz.  SC/ST/OBC/General candidates depending upon the category to  which  they  belong  in  the  roster  meant  for  reservation  of  SCs/STs/OBCs.  To  illustrate,  if  in  a  given  year  there  are  two  vacancies reserved for the persons with disabilities and out of  two  persons  with  disabilities  appointed,  one  belongs  to  a  Scheduled  Caste  and  the  other  to  general  category  then  the  disabled SC candidate shall be adjusted against the SC point in  the  reservation  roster  and  the  general  candidate  against  unreserved point in the relevant reservation roster. In case none  of the vacancies falls on point reserved for the SCs, the disabled  candidate belonging to SC shall be adjusted in future against the  next available vacancy reserved for SCs.

20. Since the persons with disabilities have to be placed in the  appropriate  category  viz.  SC/ST/OBC/  General  in  the  roster  meant for reservation of SCs/STs/OBCs, the application form for  the post should require the candidates applying under the quota  reserved for  persons with disabilities to indicate whether they  belong to SC/ST/OBC or General category.”

14) Clauses 21 and 22 of the said OM enable the Government for  

relaxation in age limit as well as standard of suitability.

15) After  the  OM  dated  29.12.2005,  based  on  the  

representations made by Respondent No. 1 herein, another OM  

16

Page 17

dated  26.04.2006  came  to  be  issued.   The  details  and  the  

directions contained in the said OM are as follows:

“Dated the 26th April, 2006

OFFICE MEMORANDUM Sub: Reservation for the Persons with Disabilities

The undersigned is directed to say that the Persons with  Disabilities  (Equal  Opportunities,  Protection  of  Rights  and  Full  Participation)  Act,  1995  which  came  into  existence  on  01.01.1996 provides for reservation for persons with disability in  the posts identified for three categories of disabilities namely (i)  blindness  or  low  vision,  (ii)  hearing  impairment  and  (iii)  locomotor  disability  or  cerebral  palsy.  Instructions  have  also  been  issued  by  this  Department  for  providing  reservation  for  such persons.  In  spite  of  the  Act  and  the  instructions  of  this  Department,  vacancies  were  not  earmarked reserved  or  were  not filled by reservation in some establishments.

2.  The matter  has  been considered  carefully  and it  has  been  decided that reservation for persons with disabilities should be  implemented in right earnest and there should be no deviation  from the scheme of reservation, particularly after the Act came  into  effect.  In  order  to  achieve  this  objective,  all  the  establishments should prepare the reservation roster  registers  as  provided  in  this  Department's  O.M.  No.  36035/3/2004-Estt  (Res)  dated  29.12.2005  starting  from  the  year  1996  and  reservation  for  persons  with  disabilities  be  earmarked  as  per  instructions contained in that OM.  If some or all the vacancies  so earmarked had not been filled by reservation and were filled  by  able  bodied  persons  either  for  the  reason  that  points  of  reservation had not been earmarked properly at the appropriate  time or persons with disabilities did not become available, such  unutilized  reservation  may be treated  as having  been  carried  forward to the first recruitment year occurring after issue of this  O.M. and be filled as such. If  it  is  not  possible  to fill  up such  reserved vacancies during the said recruitment year, reservation  would  be  carried  forward  for  further  two  years,  whereafter  it  may be treated as lapsed.

3. It has been observed that some recruiting agencies declare in  their  advertisements that  blind/partially  blind candidates need  not apply and that separate examinations would be conducted  for visually handicapped candidates. Attention is invited to para  

17

Page 18

7 of this Department's O.M. No. 36035/3/2004-Estt (Res) dated  29.12.2005  which  provides  that  persons  with  disabilities  selected  on  their  own  merit  will  not  be  adjusted  against  the  reserved  share  of  vacancies.  It  means  that  persons  with  disabilities  who  are  selected  on  their  own  merit  have  to  be  adjusted against the unreserved vacancies and reservation has  to  be given in  addition.  If  visually  handicapped candidates  or  any  other  category  of  handicapped  candidates  are  debarred  from applying on the ground that a separate examination would  be  conducted  for  them,  chances  of  handicapped  candidates  being selected on their  own merit  would be eliminated.  Thus,  debarring  of  any  category  of  handicapped  candidates  in  the  above  manner  is  against  the  provisions  contained  in  the  aforesaid  O.M.  It  is,  therefore,  requested  that  persons  with  disabilities should not be debarred from applying for the posts  identified suitable for them and should be provided opportunity  to compete for the unreserved vacancies as well by holding a  common examination.

4.  Contents  of  this  O.M.  may  be brought  to  the  notice  of  all  concerned.

Sd/- (K.G.Verma)

Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of India”

16) Another OM dated 10.12.2008, issued by the Department of  

Personnel  and  Training,  was  also  brought  to  our  notice  

whereunder  a Special  Recruitment Drive to fill  up the backlog  

reserved vacancies for the persons with disabilities was initiated.  

The said OM mainly speaks about filling up of “backlog reserved  

vacancies”.   Relevant  portion  of  the  said  OM  is  extracted  

hereinbelow:

“Dated the 10th December, 2008

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

18

Page 19

Sub: Special Recruitment Drive to fill  up the backlog reserved  vacancies for Persons with Disabilities

The undersigned is directed to say that this Department's  O.M. No. 36035/3/2004-Estt(Res) dated 29.12.2005 provides that  if any vacancy reserved for any category of disability cannot be  filled  due  to  non-availability  of  a  suitable  person  with  that  disability or for any other sufficient reason, such vacancy is not  filled and is carried forward as a 'backlog reserved vacancy' to  the subsequent recruitment year. In the subsequent recruitment  year, the 'backlog reserved vacancy' is treated as reserved for  the category of disability for which it was kept reserved in the  initial  year  of  recruitment  and  filled  as  such.  However,  if  a  suitable  person  with  that  disability  is  not  available  in  the  subsequent  recruitment  also,  it  may  be  filled  by  interchange  among  the  three  categories  of  disabilities,  failing  which  by  appointment of a person other than a person with disability. It  may, thus, be seen that if a vacancy is earmarked reserved for  any  category  of  disability  and  a  suitable  person  with  that  disability  is  not  available  to  fill  it  up  in  the  initial  year  of  recruitment,  it  becomes a 'backlog reserved  vacancy'  for  first  subsequent recruitment year.  

2.  As  per  instructions  existing  prior  to  issue  of  O.M.  dated  29.12.2005,  if  in  any  year,  suitable  physically  handicapped  candidates were not available to fill up a reserved vacancy, the  vacancy  was  filled  by  an  other  category  candidate  and  reservation  was  carried  forward  for  a  period  of  upto  three  recruitment  years.  In  the  event  of  non-availability  of  suitable  persons with disabilities, the reserved vacancies were not kept  unfilled.  Thus  there  was  no  provision  of  backlog  reserved  vacancies  of  persons  with  disabilities  prior  to  29.12.2005.  Nevertheless,  it  is  possible  that  some Ministries/Departments/  establishments  might  have  kept  some  vacancies  earmarked  reserved  for  the  persons  with  disability  unfilled  due  to  non- availability  of  persons  with  disability.  If  there  exist  such  vacancies, these will be treated as backlog reserved vacancies  for the current recruitment year”

17) By issuing such directions, the Department of Personnel and  

Training  directed  all  the  Ministries/Departments  to  launch  a  

19

Page 20

Special  Recruitment  Drive  and  fixed  target  dates  for  fulfilling  

various stages.  

Discussion:

18) In  the  light  of  the  above  statutory  provisions  as  well  as  

various  clauses  of  the  OM  dated  29.12.2005,  let  us  analyze  

whether  the  High  Court  was justified  in  passing  the  impugned  

judgment.  

19) Before adverting to the rival contentions submitted by the  

appellants and the respondents, it is relevant to comprehend the  

background  and  the  objective  of  the  Persons  with  Disabilities  

(Equal  Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation)  

Act, 1995.

20) India  as  a  welfare  State  is  committed  to  promote  overall  

development  of  its  citizens  including  those  who are  differently  

abled in order to enable them to lead a life of dignity, equality,  

freedom and justice as mandated by the Constitution of India. The  

roots of statutory provisions for ensuring equality and equalization  

of  opportunities  to  the  differently  abled  citizens in  our  country  

could be traced in Part III and Part IV of the Constitution. For the  

persons  with  disabilities,  the  changing  world  offers  more  new  

20

Page 21

opportunities owing to technological advancement, however, the  

actual limitation surfaces only when they are not provided with  

equal opportunities. Therefore, bringing them in the society based  

on their capabilities is the need of the hour.

21) Although,  the  Disability  Rights  Movement  in  India  

commenced way back in 1977, of which Respondent No. 1 herein  

was an active participant, it acquired the requisite sanction only at  

the launch of the Asian and Pacific Decade of Disabled Persons in  

1993-2002, which gave a definite  boost to the movement.  The  

main need that emerged from the meet was for a comprehensive  

legislation to protect the rights of persons with disabilities. In this  

light, the crucial legislation was enacted in 1995 viz., the Persons  

with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full  

Participation) Act, 1995 which empowers persons with disabilities  

and ensures protection of their rights. The Act, in addition to its  

other prospects, also seeks for better employment opportunities  

to  persons with  disabilities  by way of  reservation of  posts  and  

establishment of a Special Employment Exchange for them.

22) For  the  same,  Section  32  of  the  Act  stipulates  for  

identification  of  posts  which  can  be  reserved  for  persons  with  

21

Page 22

disabilities.   Section  33  provides  for  reservation  of  posts  and  

Section 36 thereof provides that in case a vacancy is not filled up  

due to non-availability of a suitable person with disability, in any  

recruitment year such  vacancy is to be carried forward in the  

succeeding recruitment year. The difference of opinion between  

the  appellants  and  the  respondents  arises  on  the  point  of  

interpretation of these sections.

23) It is the stand of the Union of India that the Act provides for  

only 3% reservation in the vacancies in the posts identified for the  

disabled  persons  and  not  on  the  total  cadre  strength  of  the  

establishment  whereas Mr.  S.K.  Rungta,  learned senior  counsel  

(R-1)  appearing  in  person  submitted  that  accepting  the  

interpretation proposed by the Union of India will flout the policy  

of  reservation  encompassed  under  Section  33  of  the  Act.  He  

further submitted that  the High Court has rightly held that the  

reservation of 3% for differently abled persons in conformity with  

the  Act  should have to be computed on the basis  of the total  

strength of a  cadre and not just on the basis of the vacancies  

available  in  the  posts  that  are  identified  for  differently  abled  

persons,  thereby  declaring  certain  clauses  of  the  OM  dated  

22

Page 23

29.12.2005  as  unacceptable  and  contrary  to  the  mandate  of  

Section 33 of the Act.  

24) Two aspects of the impugned judgment have been challenged  

before this Court:-

(a) The manner  of  computing  3% reservation for  the  persons  

with the disabilities as per Section 33 of the Act.

(b) Whether  post  based  reservation  must  be  adhered  to  or  

vacancy based reservation.  

25) Now let us consider the reasoning of the High Court and the  

submissions made by the parties.  

26) Primarily,  we  would  like  to  clarify  that  there  is  a  sea  of  

difference in computing reservation on the basis of total  cadre  

strength  and on the  basis  of total  vacancies  (both inclusive of  

identified and unidentified) in the cadre strength. At the outset, a  

reference  to  the  impugned  OM  dated  29.12.2005  would,  in  

unequivocal  terms,  establish  that  the  matter  in  dispute  in  the  

given  case  is  whether  the  latter  method  of  computation  of  

reservation will uniformly apply to the posts in Group A, B, C and D  

23

Page 24

or  will  it  be  applicable  only  to  Group  C  and  D.  The  question  

pertaining  to  computation  of  reservation  on  the  basis  of  total  

cadre strength does not even arise in the given circumstance of  

the case. However, the High Court, in the impugned judgment,  

went on to uphold the view that the computation of reservation  

must  be  on  the  basis  of  total  cadre  strength  which  is  clearly  

erroneous on the face of it. Inadvertently, the respondents herein  

have also adopted the same line of argument in their oral and  

written submissions. As a result, the point for consideration before  

this Court is whether the modus of computation of reservation on  

the basis of total number of vacancies (both inclusive of identified  

and  unidentified)  in  the  cadre  strength  will  uniformly  apply  to  

Group A, B, C and D or will it be applicable only to Group C and D.

27)  It  is  the  stand  of  the  Union  of  India  that  for  vivid  

understanding of the reservation policy laid down under Section  

33 of the Act, it is essential to read together Sections 32 and 33 of  

the Act. It was also submitted that a conjoint reading of the above  

referred sections, mandates only reservation of vacancies in the  

identified  posts  and  not  in  all  the  posts  or  against  the  total  

24

Page 25

number of vacancies in the cadre strength.  However, it was also  

admitted  that  the  computation  of  reservation is  being  done  in  

respect of Group C and D posts on the basis of total number of  

vacancies  (both  inclusive  of  identified  and  unidentified)  in  the  

cadre strength since 1977. In fact, the abovesaid contention has  

been raised in Govt. of India through Secretary and Anr. vs.  

Ravi Prakash Gupta & Anr. (2010) 7 SCC 626 and, therefore, it  

is no longer res integra.  

28) 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  the  aforementioned  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  

25

Page 26

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 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 Grade `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  purposes 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 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.                                               

26

Page 28

33 of the Act rather Section 32 is the following effect of Section  

33.

30) Apart  from the  reasoning  of  this  Court  in  Ravi  Prakash  

Gupta  (supra),  even  a  reading  of  Section  33,  at  the  outset,  

establishes vividly the intention of the legislature viz., reservation  

of 3% for differently abled persons should have to be computed on  

the basis of total vacancies in the strength of a cadre and not just  

on the  basis  of the  vacancies  available  in  the  identified  posts.  

There is no ambiguity in the language of Section 33 and from the  

construction of the said statutory provision only one meaning is  

possible.  

31) A perusal of Section 33 of the Act reveals that this section  

has  been  divided  into  three  parts.  The  first  part  is  “every  

appropriate  Government  shall  appoint  in  every  establishment  

such percentage of vacancies  not  less  than 3% for  persons or  

class of persons with disability.” It is evident from this part that it  

mandates  every  appropriate  Government  shall  appoint  a  

minimum of 3% vacancies in its establishments for persons with  

disabilities. In this light, the contention of the Union of India that  

28

Page 29

reservation in terms of Section 33 has to be computed against  

identified  posts  only  is  not  tenable  by  any  method  of  

interpretation of this part of the Section.  

32) The second part of this section starts as follows: “…of which  

one percent  each  shall  be  reserved  for  persons suffering  from  

blindness or low vision, hearing impairment & locomotor disability  

or cerebral palsy in the posts identified for each disability.” From  

the above, it is clear that it deals with distribution of 3% posts in  

every establishment among 3 categories of disabilities. It starts  

from the word “of which”. The word “of which” has to relate to  

appointing not less than 3% vacancies in an establishment and, in  

any  way,  it  does not  refer  to  the  identified  posts.  In  fact,  the  

contention  of  the  Union  of  India  is  sought  to  be  justified  by  

bringing the  last  portion of the  second part  of the  section viz.  

“….identified posts” in  this very first  part  which deals with the  

statutory obligation imposed upon the appropriate Government to  

“appoint not less than 3% vacancies for the persons or class of  

persons  with  disabilities.”  In  our  considered  view,  it  is  not  

plausible in  the light  of established rules of interpretation.  The  

29

Page 30

minimum level of representation of persons with disabilities has  

been provided in this very first part and the second part deals with  

the  distribution  of  this  3%  among  the  three  categories  of  

disabilities.  Further,  in  the  last  portion  of  the  second  part  the  

words used are “in the identified posts for each disability” and not  

“of identified posts”. This can only mean that out of minimum 3%  

of vacancies of posts in the establishments 1% each has to be  

given to each of the 3 categories of disability viz., blind and low  

vision, hearing impaired and locomotor disabled or cerebral palsy  

separately and the number of appointments equivalent to the 1%  

for each disability out of total  3% has to be made against the  

vacancies in the identified posts. The attempt to read identified  

posts in the first part itself and also to read the same to have any  

relation  with  the  computation  of  reservation  is  completely  

misconceived.  

33) The third part of the Section is the proviso which reads thus:  

“Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to  

the type of work carried on in any department or establishment,  

by  notification  subject  to  such  conditions,  if  any,  as  may  be  

30

Page 31

specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the  

provisions of this section.” The proviso also justifies the above said  

interpretation  that  the  computation  of  reservation  has  to  be  

against the total number vacancies in the cadre strength and not  

against  the  identified  posts.  Had  the  legislature  intended  to  

mandate  for  computation  of  reservation  against  the  identified  

posts only, there was no need for inserting the proviso to Section  

which  empowers  the  appropriate  Government  to  exempt  any  

establishment either partly or fully from the purview of the Section  

subject  to  such  conditions  contained  in  the  notification  to  be  

issued  in  the  Official  Gazette  in  this  behalf.  Certainly,  the  

legislature  did  not  intend  to  give  such  arbitrary  power  for  

exemption  from  reservation  for  persons  with  disabilities  to  be  

exercised by the appropriate Government when the computation  

is intended to be made against the identified posts.  

34) In this regard, another provision of the said Act also supports  

this  interpretation.  Section  41  of  the  said  Act  mandates  the  

appropriate  Government  to  frame  incentive  schemes  for  

employers with a view to ensure that 5% of their work force is  

31

Page 32

composed  of  persons  with  disabilities.  The  said  section  is  

reproduced hereinbelow:

“41.  Incentives to employers to ensure five per cent of  the work force is composed of persons with disabilities.-  The  appropriate  Government  and  the  local  authorities  shall,  within  limits  to  their  economic  capacity  and  development,  provide  incentives  to  employers  both  in  public  and  private  sectors to ensure that at least five percent of their work force is  composed of persons with disabilities.”

Thus, on a conjoint reading of Sections 33 and 41, it is clear that  

while Section 33 provides for a minimum level of representation of  

3%  in  the  establishments  of  appropriate  Government,  the  

legislature intended to ensure 5% of representation in the entire  

work force both in public as well as private sector.  

35) Moreover, the intention of the legislature while framing the  

Act  can also be inferred from the Draft  Rights of Persons with  

Disabilities  Bill,  2012,  which  is  pending  in  the  Parliament  for  

approval.  In  Chapter  6  of  the  Bill,  viz.,  Special  Provisions  for  

Persons with Benchmark Disabilities, similar sections like Sections  

32 & 33 in the Act have been incorporated under Sections 38 and  

39 which are as under:-

“Section  38.  Identification  of  Posts  which  can  be  

32

Page 33

Reserved for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities:  

Appropriate  Governments  shall  –  (a)  identify  posts  in  establishments under them which can be reserved for persons  with benchmark disability as mentioned in section 39; (b) at periodical intervals not exceeding three years, review and  revise  the  list  of  identified  posts,  taking  into  consideration  developments in technology.

Section  39.  Reservation  of  Posts  for  Persons  with  Benchmark Disabilities:-

(1)  Every  appropriate  Government  shall  reserve,  in  every  establishment under  them, not  less than 5% of  the vacancies  meant to be filled by direct recruitment, for persons or class of  persons with benchmark disability, of which 1% each shall be of  all posts reserved for persons with following disabilities:-

i) blindness  & low  vision  (with  reservation  of  0.5% of  the  vacancies for each of the two disabilities).

ii) hearing impairment & speech impairment.

iii) locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured  and muscular dystrophy.

iv) autism, intellectual disability and mental illness

v) multiple  disabilities  from  among  i  to  iv  above  including  deaf blindness

Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard  to  the  type  of  work  carried  on  in  any  department  or  establishment, by notification subject to such conditions, if any,  as  may  be  specified  in  such  notification,  exempt  any  establishment from the provisions of this section.

(2)  If  sufficient  number  of  qualified  persons  with  benchmark  disabilities  are  not  available  in  a  particular  year,  then  the  reservation  may  be  carried  forward  for  upto  the  next  three  recruitment years, and if in such succeeding recruitment years  also a suitable person with benchmark disability is not available,  then  the  post  in  the  fourth  year  may  be  first  filled  by  interchange among the categories of disabilities; and only when  there is no person with any benchmark disability available for  the post in that year, the vacancy may be filled by appointment  

33

Page 34

of a person, other than a person with benchmark disability.”

A  perusal  of  Sections  38  and  39  of  the  Bill  clarifies  all  the  

ambiguities raised in this appeal.  The intention of the legislature  

is clearly to reserve in every establishment under the appropriate  

Government, not less than 3% of the vacancies for the persons or  

class of persons with disability, of which 1% each shall be reserved  

for  persons  suffering  from  blindness  or  low  vision,  hearing  

impairment and locomotor disability or cerebral palsy in the posts  

identified for each disability.  

36) Admittedly,  the  Act  is  a  social  legislation  enacted  for  the  

benefit  of  persons  with  disabilities  and  its  provisions  must  be  

interpreted in order to fulfill its objective.  Besides, it is a settled  

rule of interpretation that if the language of a statutory provision  

is unambiguous, it  has to be interpreted according to the plain  

meaning of the said statutory provision. In the present case, the  

plain  and  unambiguous  meaning  of  Section  33  is  that  every  

appropriate  Government  has  to  appoint  a  minimum  of  3%  

vacancies  in  an  establishment  out  of  which  1% each  shall  be  

reserved  for  persons  suffering  from  blindness  and  low  vision,  

34

Page 35

persons suffering from hearing impairment and persons suffering  

from locomotor or cerebral palsy.  

37) To illustrate, if there are 100 vacancies of 100 posts in an  

establishment, the concerned establishment will have to reserve a  

minimum of 3% for persons with disabilities out of which at least  

1%  has  to  be  reserved  separately  for  each  of  the  following  

disabilities: persons suffering from blindness or low vision, persons  

suffering from hearing impairment and the persons suffering from  

locomotor  disability  or  cerebral  palsy.  Appointment  of  1  blind  

person  against  1  vacancy  reserved  for  him/her  will  be  made  

against a vacancy in an identified post for instance, the post of  

peon, which is identified for him in group D. Similarly, one hearing  

impaired will be appointed against one reserved vacancy for that  

category in the post of store attendant in group D post. Likewise,  

one person suffering from locomotor disability or cerebral palsy  

will  be  appointed  against  the  post  of  “Farash”  group  D  post  

identified for that category of disability. It was argued on behalf of  

Union of India with reference to the post of driver that since the  

said post is not suitable to be manned by a person suffering from  

35

Page 36

blindness,  the  above  interpretation  of  the  Section  would  be  

against the administrative exigencies. Such an argument is wholly  

misconceived.  A given post may not be identified as suitable for  

one category of disability, the same could be identified as suitable  

for  another  category  or  categories  of  disability  entitled  to  the  

benefit of reservation. In fact, the second part of the Section has  

clarified this situation by providing that the number of vacancies  

equivalent to 1% for each of the aforementioned three categories  

will be filled up by the respective category by using vacancies in  

identified posts for each of them for the purposes of appointment.

38) It has also been submitted on behalf of the appellants herein  

that since reservation of persons with disabilities in Group C and D  

has  been  in  force  prior  to  the  enactment  and  is  being  made  

against  the  total  number  of  vacancies  in  the  cadre  strength  

according to the OM dated 29.12.2005 but the actual import of  

Section 33 is that it has to be computed against identified posts  

only. This argument is also completely misconceived in view of the  

plain language of the said Section, as deliberated above. Even, for  

the  sake  of  arguments,  if  we  accept  that  the  computation  of  

36

Page 37

reservation in respect of Group C and D posts is against the total  

vacancies in the cadre strength because of the applicability of the  

scheme of reservation in Group C and D posts prior to enactment,  

Section 33 does not  distinguish  the  manner  of  computation of  

reservation between Group A and B posts or Group C and D posts  

respectively.  As  such,  one  statutory  provision  cannot  be  

interpreted and applied differently for the same subject matter.  

39) Further,  if  we accept  the  interpretation  contended by the  

appellants that computation of reservation has to be against the  

identified  posts  only,  it  would  result  into  uncertainty  of  the  

application of the scheme of reservation because experience has  

shown that  identification has  never  been  uniform between  the  

Centre  and States  and  even  between the  Departments  of  any  

Government. For example, while a post of middle school teacher  

has been notified as identified as suitable for the blind and low  

vision by the Central Government, it has not been identified as  

suitable  for  the  blind  and  low  vision  in  some  States  such  as  

Gujarat and J&K etc. This has led to a series of litigations which  

have been pending in various High Courts. In addition, Para 4 of  

37

Page 38

the OM dated 29.12.2005 dealing with the issue of identification of  

jobs/posts  in  sub  clause  (b)  states  that  list  of  the  jobs/posts  

notified by the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment is not  

exhaustive which further makes the computation of reservation  

uncertain  and  arbitrary  in  the  event  of  acceptance  of  the  

contention raised by the appellants.

40) Another  contention  raised  by  the  appellants  is  that  the  

computation  of  reservation  against  the  total  vacancies  in  the  

cadre strength in Group A & B will violate the rule of 50% ceiling of  

reservation in favour of SC, ST and OBC as laid down by this Court  

in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India and others AIR 1993 SC  

477.  This  contention  is  also  not  tenable  and  is  against  the  

abovesaid judgment.  It  is difficult  to understand as to how the  

computation of reservation against total vacancies in the cadre  

strength  in  Group  A  and  B  will  violate  50%  ceiling  when  its  

computation on that basis in Group C and D will not violate the  

said ceiling. There is no rationale of distinguishing between the  

manner of computation of reservation with regard to Group A and  

B  posts  on  the  one  hand  and  manner  of  computation  of  

38

Page 39

reservation with regard to Group C and D posts on the other on  

this ground.

41) A perusal of Indra Sawhney (supra) would reveal that the  

ceiling of 50% reservation applies only to reservation in favour of  

other Backward classes under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of  

India whereas the reservation in favour of persons with disabilities  

is horizontal, which is under Article 16(1) of the Constitution. In  

fact, this Court in the said pronouncement has used the example  

of  3%  reservation  in  favour  of  persons  with  disabilities  while  

dealing  with  the  rule  of  50% ceiling.  Para  95 of  the  judgment  

clearly  brings  out  that  after  selection  and  appointment  of  

candidates under reservation for persons with disabilities they will  

be placed in the respective rosters of reserved category or open  

category respectively on the basis of the category to which they  

belong and, thus, the reservation for persons with disabilities per  

se has  nothing  to  do  with  the  ceiling  of  50%.  Para  95  is  

reproduced as follows:-

“95. ……all reservations are not of the same nature. There are  two  types  of  reservations,  which  may,  for  the  sake  of  convenience,  be  referred  to  as  'vertical  reservations'  and  

39

Page 41

beyond  the  same.   Likewise,  if  the  language  of  the  relevant  

section  gives  a  simple  meaning  and  message,  it  should  be  

interpreted  in  such  a  way  and  there  is  no  need  to  give  any  

weightage to headings of those paragraphs.  This aspect has been  

clarified in Prakash Nath Khanna & Anr. vs. Commissioner of  

Income Tax & Anr., (2004) 9 SCC 686.  Paragraph 13 of the said  

judgment is relevant which reads as under:

“13. It  is a well-settled principle in law that the court  cannot  read  anything  into  a  statutory  provision  which  is  plain  and  unambiguous.  A  statute  is  an  edict  of  the  legislature.  The  language employed in a statute is the determinative factor  of  legislative intent.  The first  and primary  rule  of  construction  is  that the intention of the legislation must be found in the words  used by the legislature itself. The question is not what may be  supposed  and  has  been  intended  but  what  has  been  said.  “Statutes should be construed, not as theorems of Euclid”, Judge  Learned Hand said,  “but  words must  be construed with some  imagination of the purposes which lie behind them”. (See Lenigh  Valley Coal Co. v. Yensavage.  The view was reiterated in Union  of India v.  Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama  and  Padma Sundara Rao v. State of T.N..”

44) It  is  clear  that  when  the  provision  is  plainly  worded  and  

unambiguous, it has to be interpreted in such a way that the Court  

must avoid the danger of a prior determination of the meaning of  

a provision based on their own preconceived notions of ideological  

structure or scheme into which the provision to be interpreted is  

somewhat fitted.  While interpreting the provisions, the Court only  

41

Page 42

interprets the law and cannot legislate it.  It is the function of the  

Legislature to amend, modify or repeal it, if deemed necessary.

45) The heading  of  a  Section or  marginal  note may be relied  

upon to clear any doubt or ambiguity in the interpretation of the  

provision and to discern the legislative intent.  However, when the  

Section is clear and unambiguous, there is no need to traverse  

beyond  those  words,  hence,  the  headings  or  marginal  notes  

cannot control the meaning of the body of the section.  Therefore,  

the contention of Respondent No. 1 herein that  the heading of  

Section 33 of the  Act  is  “Reservation of  posts”  will  not  play a  

crucial role, when the Section is clear and unambiguous.

46) Further, the respondents heavily relied on a decision of the  

Constitution Bench in  R.K Sabharwal and others vs.  State of  

Punjab  and  others (1995)  2  SCC  745  to  substantiate  their  

contention. Para 6 reads as under:-

“6. The expressions "posts" and "vacancies", often used in the  executive  instructions  providing  for  reservations,  are  rather  problematical.  The  word  "post"  means  an  appointment,  job,  office or employment. A position to which a person is appointed.  "Vacancy"  means  an  unoccupied  post  or  office.  The  plain  meaning of the two expressions make it clear that there must be  

42

Page 43

a 'post' in existence to enable the 'vacancy' to occur. The cadre- strength is always measured by the number of posts comprising  the cadre. Right to be considered for appointment can only be  claimed in respect of a post in a cadre. As a consequence the  percentage of reservation has to be worked out in relation to the  number of posts, which form the cadre-strength. The concept of  'vacancy'  has  no  relevance  in  operating  the  percentage  of  reservation.”

47) Adhering to the decision laid by the Constitution Bench in  

R.K Sabharwal (supra), the High Court held as follows:-

16. The Disabilities Act was enacted for protection of the rights  of  the  disabled  in  various  spheres  like  education,  training,  employment and to remove any discrimination against them in  the  sharing  of  development  benefits  vis-à-vis  non-disabled  persons. In the light of the legislative aim it is necessary to give  purposive interpretation to section 33 with a view to achieve the  legislative intendment of attaining equalization of opportunities  for  persons  with  disabilities.  The  fact  that  the  vacancy-based  roster is to be maintained does not mean that 3% reservation  has to be computed only on the basis of vacancy. The difference  between the posts and vacancies has been succinctly  pointed  out  in  the  Supreme  Court  decision  in  the  case  of  R.K  Sabharwal and Others vs  state of Punjab and others AIR  1995 SC 1371 wherein it was held that the word “post” means  an appointment, job, office or employment, a position to which a  person is appointed.  “Vacancy” means an unoccupied post or  office. The plain meaning of the two expressions make it clear  that there must be a ‘post’ in existence to enable the vacancy to  occur. The cadre-strength is always measured by the number of  posts  comprising  the  cadre.  Right  to  be  considered  for  appointment can only be claimed in respect of a post in a cadre.  As  a  consequence  the  percentage  of  reservation  has  to  be  worked out in relation to the number of posts which from the  cadre-strength.  The  concept  of  ‘vacancy’  has  no  relevance  in  operating  the  percentage  of  reservation.  Therefore,  in  our  opinion, 3 % reservation for disabled has to be computed on the  

43

Page 44

basis of total strength of the cadre i.e. both identified as well as  unidentified posts….”

48)  However,  the  decision  in  R.K  Sabharwal  (supra) is  not  

applicable  to  the  reservation  for  the  persons  with  disabilities  

because in the above said case, the point for consideration was  

with regard to the implementation of the scheme of reservation  

for  SC,  ST  &  OBC,  which  is  vertical  reservation  whereas  

reservation in favour of persons with disabilities is horizontal. We  

harmonize  with  the  stand  taken  by  the  Union  of  India,  the  

appellant  herein  in  this  regard.  Besides,  the  judgment  in  R.K  

Sabharwal (supra) was pronounced before the date on which  

the Act came into force, as a consequence, the intent of the Act  

must  be  given  priority  over  the  decision  in  the  above  said  

judgment. Thus,  in  unequivocal  terms,  the  reservation  policy  

stipulated in the Act is vacancy based reservation.

Conclusion:

49) Employment  is  a  key  factor  in  the  empowerment  and  

inclusion of people with disabilities. It is an alarming reality that  

44

Page 45

the  disabled  people  are  out  of  job not  because their  disability  

comes  in  the  way  of  their  functioning  rather  it  is  social  and  

practical barriers that prevent them from joining the workforce. As  

a result, many disabled people live in poverty and in deplorable  

conditions.  They  are  denied  the  right  to  make  a  useful  

contribution to their own lives and to the lives of their families and  

community.

50) The Union of India,  the State Governments as well  as the  

Union  Territories  have  a  categorical  obligation  under  the  

Constitution  of  India  and  under  various  International  treaties  

relating  to  human  rights  in  general  and  treaties  for  disabled  

persons in particular,  to protect  the rights of disabled persons.  

Even though the Act was enacted way back in 1995, the disabled  

people have failed to get required benefit until today.  

51) Thus, after thoughtful consideration, we are of the view that  

the computation of reservation for persons with disabilities has to  

be computed in case of Group A, B, C and D posts in an identical  

manner viz., “computing 3% reservation on total number of  

vacancies in the cadre strength” which is the intention of the  

45

Page 46

legislature.  Accordingly,  certain  clauses  in  the  OM  dated  

29.12.2005, which are contrary to the above reasoning are struck  

down and we direct  the  appropriate  Government  to  issue new  

Office Memorandum(s) in consistent with the decision rendered by  

this Court.

52) Further,  the  reservation  for  persons  with  disabilities  has  

nothing to do with the ceiling of 50% and hence, Indra Sawhney  

(supra) is not applicable with respect to the disabled persons.

53) We  also  reiterate  that  the  decision  in  R.K.  Sabharwal  

(supra) is not applicable to the reservation for the persons with  

disabilities  because  in  the  above  said  case,  the  point  for  

consideration  was  with  regard  to  the  implementation  of  the  

scheme  of  reservation  for  SC,  ST  &  OBC,  which  is  vertical  

reservation,  whereas  reservation  in  favour  of  persons  with  

disabilities is horizontal.

Directions:

46

Page 47

54) In our opinion, in order to ensure proper implementation of  

the reservation policy for the disabled and to protect their rights,  

it is necessary to issue the following directions:

(i) We  hereby  direct  the  appellant  herein  to  issue  an  

appropriate  order  modifying the  OM dated 29.12.2005 and the  

subsequent OMs consistent with this Court’s Order within three  

months from the date of passing of this judgment.

(ii) We hereby direct the “appropriate Government” to compute  

the number of vacancies available in all the “establishments” and  

further identify the posts for disabled persons within a period of  

three  months  from  today  and  implement  the  same  without  

default.

(iii) The  appellant  herein  shall  issue  instructions  to  all  the  

departments/public  sector  undertakings/Government  companies  

declaring that the non observance of the scheme of reservation  

for persons with disabilities should be considered as an act of non-

obedience  and  Nodal  Officer  in  department/public  sector  

undertakings/Government companies, responsible for the proper  

47

Page 48

strict implementation of reservation for person with disabilities, be  

departmentally proceeded against for the default.

55) Before  parting  with  the  case,  we  would  like  to  place  on  

record appreciation for Mr. S.K Rungta, learned senior counsel for  

rendering commendable assistance to the Court.  The appeal is  

disposed of with the above terms.

...…………….…………………………CJI                     (P. SATHASIVAM)                                  

 .…....…………………………………J.                (RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI)              

 .…....…………………………………J.                (RANJAN GOGOI)                                

NEW DELHI; OCTOBER 08, 2013.  

48