Reservation in promotions for persons with disabilities should not "open gates" for other horizontal reservation candidates: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently invoked its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to direct the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to retrospectively extend the benefit of reservation in promotions to an employee afflicted with post-polio limb paralysis. [Reserve Bank of India vs AK Nair And Ors].A bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta passed the ruling on July 4..The Court held that the employee had a statutory right to claim reservation even in promotion towards the appointment in Class I posts, as per Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995. On this aspect, reliance was placed on the rulings in Rajiv Kumar Gupta and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors., Siddaraju vs. State of Karnataka and ors., and State of Kerala and Ors. vs. Leesamma Joseph..Pertinently, in a concurring opinion, Justice S Ravindra Bhat, also cautioned that reservations in promotions cannot be unduly extended to others entitled to horizontal reservations (like reservations for women, transgender persons etc.), just because persons with disabilities have been given such reservations. ."That persons with disabilities need to be accommodated, in public service, is a given. At the same time, this reasonable accommodation ought not to open gates for demands by those benefitting other kinds of horizontal reservation, for reservation in promotional vacancies in public services," Justice Bhat observed. .Justice Bhat explained that it was not the intention of the Constitution of India to completely kill the spirit of competition. To earmark promotions for one class of citizens (that is, those who stand to benefit from horizontal reservation) is not constitutionally protected, he said.The only exception is when reservation in promotions are extended to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe appointees (on the basis of vertical reservation), the judge held. "It was not the intention of Article 16 of the Constitution to compromise on administrative inefficiency by culling the spirit of competition - after all, positions gained by promotions taper higher up. To ear-mark a certain portion to one class of citizens, and not others, who may have also gained initial appointments on the strength of such horizontality (such as women, retired / ex-servicemen, etc.) is not constitutionally protected – the only exception to reservations in promotions is SC / ST appointees, as provided under Article 16(4A)," the judgment stated. .The observations came while allowing a plea filed by one, AK Nair, a Coin Manager at the RBI. He had given the All India Merit Test in 2003 for promotion to a Class I post, but had fallen short of qualifying by three marks. His representations to condone the same on account of his disability were unsuccessful. The posts in question had the same cut-off, at the time, for both the general category candidates and candidates with disabilities.In 2014, the Bombay High Court held that the RBI was required to provide reservations in promotion for candidates with disabilities on a horizontal basis with effect from 2006. However, the High Court did not give a ruling on Nair’s claim, leading to the appeal before the top court..The Supreme Court allowed his appeal, finding that,"We have no doubt that Mr. Nair did have a statutorily conferred right all through to claim that reservation in promotional appointment in Group ‘A’ posts is ingrained in the PwD Act, 1995 ... The omission or failure of the RBI in condoning the shortfall in marks coupled with the neglect to identify a Group ‘A’ post suitable for reservation to accommodate Mr. Nair on promotion appears to us to be indefensible.".In the opinion authored by Justice Datta, the Court also criticised the RBI for its rigid approach in deciding the employee's claim."Even otherwise, to reach out to persons with disabilities and grant them the facilities and benefits that the PwD Act, 1995 envisaged, it was rather harsh to apply standards which are applicable to general candidates to Mr. Nair while he competed with such general candidates for securing his promotion. RBI, as a model employer, ought to have taken an informed decision in this regard commensurate with the aspirations of persons with disabilities.".The Court proceeded to grant the RBI four months time to complete the requisite formalities to release the monetary benefits due to Nair. The bench also clarified that when Nair retires in 2025, his retiral benefits should be computed taking into account the Court's ruling that his promotion should be recognised retrospectively. .Additional Solicitor General (now former) Madhavi Divan appeared for the Central government before the Supreme Court. Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta appeared for the RBI.Advocate K Mohan appeared for the appellant. .[Read Judgment]