2010 (7) TMI 1079 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Reservation of posts for visually handicapped candidates under the Disabilities Act, 1995.
2. Identification of posts suitable for reservation under Section 33 of the Disabilities Act, 1995.
3. Implementation of the Disabilities Act, 1995, and the timing of such implementation.

Summary:

Issue 1: Reservation of posts for visually handicapped candidates under the Disabilities Act, 1995

The Respondent No.1, a visually handicapped person with 100% blindness, appeared for the Civil Services Examination in 2006 and was successful. Despite being at serial no.5 in the merit list for visually handicapped candidates, he was not given an appointment due to the claim that only one post was available under the said category. The Respondent No.1 argued that there should have been at least 7 vacancies from the reserved categories of disabilities if the vacancies were considered from the year 1996, when the Disabilities Act, 1995, came into force.

Issue 2: Identification of posts suitable for reservation under Section 33 of the Disabilities Act, 1995

The Government of India contended that the reservation for visually handicapped persons in Group 'A' and 'B' posts was identified only in 2005, and hence, the reservation could not be applied retrospectively from 1996. The Respondent No.1 and intervenors argued that the identification of posts should have been done simultaneously with the enactment of the Disabilities Act, 1995, and the failure to do so should not deprive the Respondent No.1 of his rightful appointment.

Issue 3: Implementation of the Disabilities Act, 1995, and the timing of such implementation

The Supreme Court examined whether the reservation provided for in Section 33 of the Disabilities Act, 1995, was dependent on the identification of posts suitable for such appointment. The Court observed that the legislative intent was to provide for the integration of persons with disabilities into the social mainstream and to ensure equal opportunities. The Court held that the submission made by the Union of India regarding the implementation of Section 33 only after the identification of posts under Section 32 was contrary to the legislative intent. The Court emphasized that the identification of posts should have been undertaken simultaneously with the coming into operation of the Act to give effect to the provisions of Section 33.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Government of India, upheld the judgment of the Delhi High Court, and directed the petitioners to offer an appointment to the Respondent No.1 within eight weeks. The petitioners were also ordered to pay the cost of the proceedings to the Respondent No.1, assessed at Rs. 20,000/-, within four weeks.