Home case analysis Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka (2020) and (2021)

Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka (2020) and (2021)

May 11, 2024

195

This article is written by Almana Singh. It deals with both the 2020 and 2021 judgements of the case of Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka, with reference to its facts, issues raised, and arguments made, as well as the concerned legal provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights, and Full Participation) Act, 1995, and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Table of Contents

Introduction

Section 32 and Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights, and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995), provide that every government in every establishment shall provide reservations of a minimum of 3% for persons with disabilities. This clause underscores the ongoing commitment to fostering diversity and equal access to opportunities within the workforce. This case analysis delves into the implementation of a reservation policy in the case of promotions for persons with disabilities. In Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court passed two pivotal judgements, dated 14.01.2020 and 18.09.2021. The 2020 judgement reaffirmed the applicability of reservations. However, the 2021 judgement was a clarification sought by the Union of India (UOI) regarding the implication of the 2020 verdict. In this article, both judgements will be explored in detail.

Details of the case

Case name: Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka
Petitioner: Siddaraju
Respondent: State of Karnataka
Court: Supreme Court of India
Type of case: civil appeal
Date of Judgement: 15.01.2020 and 18.09.2021
Bench:

2020: Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice Aniruddha Bose, and Justice V. Ramasubramanian.

2021: Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, and Justice B.R. Gavai.

Equivalent citations:

2020: [2020] 1 SCR 1175, 2020 (3) SLR 732 (SC)

2021: 2021 (4) SC T341 (SC), 2022 (1) SLR 840 (SC)

Background of the case

The Department of Personnel and Training issued an Office Memorandum (O.M.) dated 29.12.2005 for the proper implementation of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, which contained contradictory clauses for the benefit of persons with disabilities. A petition was filed, and the High Court directed the UOI to modify the O.M. dated 29.12.2005 since it was inconsistent with Section 33 of the aforementioned Act. Aggrieved by the High Court order, the Union of India filed an appeal in the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Court asked the appellant (UOI) to modify the 2005 O.M. within 3 months. In accordance with this, the Union of India issued an O.M. dated 03.12.2013, which contained one change.

A judgement that must be referred to is that of Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. Union of India (2016). The question was whether the posts classified under Groups A and B can be considered under the 3% reservation in promotion because the said posts are filled by direct recruitment. The UOI argued that this issue was covered by the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) and that Groups A and B should not be provided reservations in cases of promotion. Eventually, the government was directed to extend the 3% reservation in case of promotion to all identified posts under Groups A, B, C, and D, irrespective of the mode of filling up of such posts. It can be observed that the Supreme Court has time and time again established precedents that have benefited persons with disabilities and has struck down laws that are inconsistent with the 1995 Act.

Laws involved in the case

Provisions under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights, and Full Participation) Act, 1995

Section 32: Identification of posts which can be reserved for persons with disabilities

Under Section 32 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, the appropriate government is mandated to identify specific positions within establishments that can be reserved for persons with disabilities. This provision is a crucial step in securing equal employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities. Furthermore, it is stipulated that this list of reserved posts must be reviewed at regular intervals of not more than 3 years, ensuring that the identified posts remain relevant and inclusive.

Section 33: Reservation of posts

Section 33 of this Act emphasises the reservation of vacancies for persons with disabilities in every establishment. It mandates that a certain percentage of vacancies, that is, not less than 3%, must be reserved for individuals with disabilities. Out of this 3%, 1% must be specifically reserved for persons with blindness or low vision, hearing impairment, locomotor disabilities, or cerebral palsy.

In other words, in an instance wherein the Department of Social Welfare puts out 100 vacancies, at least 3% of those, which is 3 vacancies, have to be reserved for persons with disabilities. Out of these vacancies reserved for persons with disabilities, 1% of them must be further reserved for those facing blindness or low vision, hearing impairment, locomotor disability, or cerebral palsy.

An understanding of Section 32 and Section 33 can be traced in a judgement passed by the Supreme Court in the case of the State of Kerala & Ors. v. Leesamma Joseph (2021). The Supreme Court heard an appeal by the State of Kerala, challenging a Kerala High Court judgement that granted reservations in promotions for persons with disabilities. The respondent, Leesamma Joseph, appointed due to compassion following the death of her brother, contended that she was eligible for earlier promotions in accordance with Sections 32 and 33, as compared to what she was granted. The High Court ruled in her favour, and aggrieved by the order, the State of Kerala filed an appeal. The Supreme Court interpreted the Persons with Disabilities Act of 1995 and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act of 2016, holding that persons with disabilities are entitled to reservation in promotion. It emphasised the need for a change in the societal mindset to fulfil the intentions of these Acts of ensuring equal opportunities for the disabled. The Court directed the Union Government to formulate instructions for the implementation of such reservations.

Provisions under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

Section 34: Reservation

This Section requires that in every government establishment, a minimum of 4% of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength in each group of posts must be allotted to persons with benchmark disabilities. Out of this, 1% each shall be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (a), (b), and (c), and 1% for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (d) and (e):

Blindness and low vision
Deaf and hard of hearing
Locomotor disability, including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims, and muscular dystrophy
Autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability, and mental illness
Multiple disabilities from amongst persons under clauses (a) to (d), including deaf-blindness.

Based on criteria such as the nature of the work concerned, the government, in consultation with the Chief Commissioner or the State Commissioner, has the power to exempt specific government establishments from adhering to the provisions laid down under this Section. The communication of the same would take place through an official notification.

If a vacancy cannot be filled in a recruitment year due to the unavailability of a suitable person with a benchmark disability or other reasons, the same will be carried forward to the next recruitment year. If no suitable candidate with a benchmark disability is found in the next recruitment year as well, the vacancy may be filled through interchanging among the five categories. Only when there is no person with a disability available for the post in that year, the employer is allowed to appoint a person without disability. It is also stated that if certain vacancies in an establishment cannot be filled by a specific category of person, the vacancies may be interchanged among the five categories with prior approval from the government.

Lastly, the government may grant a relaxation with respect to the maximum age limit for employing people with benchmark disabilities through a notification.

In the case of Rashmi Thakur v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (2018), the petitioner, a person with a visual disability to the extent of 75% due to microphthalmia in the right eye and coloboma of the iris in the left eye, challenged the High Court’s advertisement for filling up of posts of Civil Judge Class-II (Entry Level), which provided for reservation of 2% posts for candidates with orthopaedic disability, without providing any reservation for candidates with visual disabilities. It was observed that the High Court’s advertisement was in contravention of Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and ruled in favour of the petitioners. The High Court was obligated to reserve posts for candidates with visual disabilities.

Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka (2020)

Facts of the case

Dr. Siddaraju (the petitioner) was a person with a disability and a non-KAS cadre officer. The Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms announced six positions for promotions of non-KAS cadres to IAS. The petitioner fulfilled the eligibility criteria, boasted good performance reviews, and yet was not recommended for promotion, which would not have been the case if the establishment had provided a 3% reservation. The petitioner filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which was dismissed on the ground that the application had not challenged the O.M. dated 29.12.2005. This CAT order was challenged before the High Court of Karnataka, which went on to uphold the same. Later on, a special leave petition and a civil appeal were filed, challenging the High Court’s decision. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in an order dated 14.01.2020, upheld the three prior judgements of Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. Union of India (2016), Union of India v. National Federation for the Blind (2013), and National Federation for the Blind & Ors. v. Sanjay Kothari (2015), reiterating that provisions of reservations in cases of promotions of persons with disabilities are mandatorily required to be followed by the Union and State Governments. The Supreme Court dismissed the order passed by CAT and the High Court of Karnataka.

Issues raised

The issue dealt with in this case was whether persons falling under the ambit of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, can be allotted reservations in promotions.

Arguments advanced

Appellant

The appellant argued that the prohibition on reservation in promotions, as laid down in the case of Indra Sawhney, does not apply to persons with disabilities. It was contended that once a post is identified as suitable for persons with disabilities, under Section 32 of the 1995 Act, reservations under Section 33 must follow, as affirmed by the precedents set by courts.
The appellant pointed out that, as per the Gazette Notification dated 31.05.2001, it is the Expert Committee that has to identify the posts, keeping in view the provisions of Section 32 of the 1995 Act, which is yet to be done in the present case.

Respondent

Additional Solicitor General, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, on behalf of the respondent, submitted that promotions shall be in accordance with the instructions issued by the appropriate government from time to time, as provided under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. It was argued that the issue at hand has been answered in the Indra Sawhney judgement, which denies reservations in promotions.

Judgement of Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka (2020)

Quantum of reservations

The court cited the case of Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind and Ors. (2013). The O.M. dated 29.12.2005, which discussed the quantum of reservation as follows:

In the case of direct recruitment, 3% of the vacancies in Group A, B, C, and D should be reserved for persons with disabilities. Within that 3%, 1% shall be reserved for people suffering from

Blindness or low vision,
Hearing impairment and
Locomotor disability, or cerebral palsy

3% of the vacancies in cases 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. Out of this, 1% shall be reserved for those suffering from the disabilities specified above.

The Court was of the opinion that the contention of the appellant, that the calculation of reservation for persons with disabilities in Group C and Group D must be carried out differently, does not sustain. As per Section 33, reservations must be calculated only against the identified posts. Even if the reservation scheme for Group C and Group D, which existed before the present law came into being, is taken into consideration, Section 33 does not differentiate between the calculation of reservations for different groups. One provision cannot be interpreted and applied differently for the same matter.

There is no uniform system of identification of posts across the various tiers of the government. This would imply that the appellant’s view of applying reservation only to identified posts would give rise to ambiguity in the procedure for reservation.

The 50% reservation laid down in the Indra Sawhney case applies only to backward classes under Article 16(4) of the Constitution. It is Article 16(1) that governs reservations for persons with disabilities. In order to clarify the reservation process, the Court elaborated on this segregation by explaining and differentiating between vertical reservations, which apply to OBCs, SCs, STs, etc., and horizontal reservations, which apply to those with disabilities. Horizontal reservation, or the reservation for persons with disabilities, operates independently of the 50% threshold. In simpler terms, once selected, candidates with disabilities will be allotted positions while making the necessary adjustments on the basis of the category (SC, ST, OBC, Open) they belong to, which does not impact the overall reservation limit of 50%.

The Court emphasised that employment is a key factor in the empowerment and inclusion of persons with disabilities. Disabled people are out of jobs, not because their disability comes in the way of their functioning but because social and practical barriers prevent them from such employment.

It was concluded that reservations for persons with disabilities should be calculated uniformly across Group A, B, C, and D posts by computing 3% reservations based on a total number of vacancies in cadre strength. Certain contrary clauses of the O.M. were struck down that didn’t align with the court’s ruling, and the government was directed to issue a new O.M.

Uniform computation of vacancies

The court referred to the case of the National Federation of the Blind v. Sanjay Kothari, Secy. Deptt. Of Personnel and Training (2015), which clarified paragraph 51 from the judgement in Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind and Ors. (2013), observing that the manner of computation of vacancies across Groups A, B, C, and D must be uniform and that nothing beyond this should be interpreted from paragraph 51.

The Court then referred to the case of Rajeev Kumar Gupta and Ors. v. Union of India (2016), which dealt with the question of whether the Indra Sawhney judgement’s findings on the matter of prohibition on reservations in promotions also extend to identified posts in Group A and Group B within Prasar Bharati. The Court disagreed with the UOI’s contention that Group A and Group B should not be provided with reservation in promotions, stating that Indra Sawhney’s judgement concerned itself with backward classes, as under Article 16(4), while the present issue deals with the 3% reservation for those who are disabled, specifically with respect to identified posts in Group A and Group B. Additionally, the Court also highlighted that reservations for persons with disabilities are made on the basis of physical disability and not any of the restricted criteria mentioned under Article 16(1). Accordingly, the Court held that the prohibition on reservations in promotions does not apply to the present case.

It was noted that a combined reading of Sections 32 and 33 indicates a fine balance between the requirements and administration of opportunities for persons with disabilities. Once a post is identified under Section 32, it implies that a person with a disability is fully capable of discharging the functions associated with the identified post, and hence a 3% reservation under Section 33 must follow. The government was directed to extend a 3% reservation in the case of promotions in all identified posts under Groups A, B, C, and D, irrespective of the mode of filing for such posts.

Final verdict

The court reaffirmed the judgments of Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind and Ors. (2013), National Federation of the Blind v. Sanjay Kothari, Secy. Deptt. Of Personnel and Training (2015), and Rajeev Kumar Gupta and Ors. v. Union of India (2016), while directing the Union and State Governments to follow the guidelines and observations outlined in these cases, notwithstanding the O.M. dated 29.12.2005. On the basis of the judgement in the present case, the impugned decision was overturned and the contempt petition was allowed. The appeal was resolved accordingly.

Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka (2021)

The UOI raised questions regarding the implications of the 2020 judgement. A miscellaneous application was filed, and the questions contained in the same were decided in the present judgement dated 18.09.2021. The UOI was directed to submit a written note identifying the points on which clarification was sought.

Issues raised

Pursuant to the said direction, a written note was filed by the Additional Solicitor General, seeking clarification on the following four issues:

Whether vacancies for persons with disabilities must be computed solely based on identified posts or on both identified and unidentified posts?
Whether persons with disabilities can be given a reservation at the time of induction from SCS or non-SCS to IAS?
Whether the judgement intends to provide for reservation in promotion beyond the level of Group A or up to the lowest level of Group A?
Whether the judgement of Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka and Ors, dated 14.01.2020, along with its associated cases must be based on the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 (based on which the case was filed) or the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (the most recent Act applicable on the date of the judgement)?

Arguments advanced

Applicant

Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Madhavi Divan, appearing for the UOI, stated that reservation in promotion shall take place as per the instructions issued by the concerned governments, periodically, as under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The implementation of the three judgements– Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind and Ors. (2013), National Federation of the Blind v. Sanjay Kothari, Secretary Department of Personnel and Training (2015), and Rajeev Kumar Gupta and Ors. v. Union of India (2016), gave rise to some queries, and it is necessary to receive clarifications on the same, which would enable the UOI to seamlessly issue further instructions.

Respondent

Senior Counsel, Ms. Jayna Kothari, and Mr. Ranjan Mani, appearing for Siddaraju, opposed the submissions made by the UOI by contending that there existed no requirement for any clarification of the judgements delivered by this court. They went on to voice a concern that the delay in issuing directives with respect to Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 has led to an impediment in the execution of reservations in promotion for persons with disabilities.

Judgement in Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka (2021)

The Supreme Court decided that there existed no ambiguity in the judgement, which called for clarification. The UOI was directed to issue instructions with respect to reservations in promotion, in accordance with Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, within a period of four months from the date of the pronouncement of this judgement.

Analysis of the case of Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind and Ors., observed,

“Employment is a key factor in the empowerment and inclusion of people with disabilities. It is an alarming reality that disabled people are out of jobs not because their disability comes in the way of their functioning but rather because of 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.”

This sentiment was reaffirmed by the judgement in the present case. It underscores the commitment of the Apex Court to upholding the rights of persons with disabilities. The Court reaffirmed that the judgement delivered in the landmark case of Indra Sawhney shall not apply to persons with disabilities. The emphasis on dismantling the stigma associated with disabilities reflects a progressive approach. By highlighting that disabilities do not inherently obstruct functionality, the judgement challenges societal perceptions and encourages a shift towards inclusivity. This judgement sets a major precedent in the realm of the rights of the disabled and promotes the introduction of proactive measures to ensure equal access to employment and advancement in opportunities.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the case analysis of Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka illuminates the role of the judiciary in ensuring the rights and equal opportunities for PwDs. The judgement that was given in 2020 and 2021 underscores the progressive stance of the judiciary towards dismantling barriers that hinder inclusivity. In this case, the court reaffirmed the obligations of governments to provide reservations and promote employment for PwDs. The court emphasised uniform computation of vacancies across various posts, whether directly recruited or indirectly. The court highlighted the broader societal implications of employment for persons with disabilities. By recognising that disabilities do not inherently impede functionality but are often exacerbated by social barriers, we can observe a paradigm shift towards inclusivity. The Apex Court once again sets a precedent for promoting the rights and dignity of individuals with disabilities.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Who is governed under the Persons with Disabilities Act, of 1995?

Section 2 of this Act defines “disability” as follows:

blindness
low vision
leprosy-cured
hearing impairment
locomotor disability
mental retardation
mental illness

Under sub-clause (t), a “person with disability” is defined as a person suffering from not less than forty percent of any disability as certified by a medical authority.

References

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity