(Civil Appeal No. 318 of 2014)

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Usha Nair, an employee of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), was working in the position of Assistant within the bank.
2. In 2003, Usha Nair, who had a disability, appeared for an examination for promotion to the Assistant Manager Grade ‘A’ position within the RBI.
3. Usha Nair secured marks in the examination but did not meet the minimum qualifying marks required for general category candidates.
4. The RBI had a policy of granting relaxation in minimum qualifying marks for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) candidates. However, this policy did not explicitly mention any relaxation in minimum qualifying marks for persons with disabilities.
5. Despite her disability, Usha Nair was not given the same benefit of relaxation in qualifying marks as SC and ST candidates.
6. Usha Nair argued that she should receive the same relaxation in qualifying marks as SC and ST candidates because she was a person with a disability.
7. She contended that this discrimination violated her rights and the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights, and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (PwD Act).
8. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) asserted that no such relaxation was applicable to persons with disabilities in promotional posts, particularly in Grade ‘A’ posts.
9. Usha Nair filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala, seeking relief and challenging the RBI’s policy regarding the relaxation of minimum qualifying marks for persons with disabilities in promotion cases.
10. The High Court of Kerala directed the RBI to consider Usha Nair for promotion, including the relaxation in minimum qualifying marks for persons with disabilities. The RBI and the Government of India appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES

1. Whether the RBI’s policy on the relaxation of minimum qualifying marks for promotion to Group ‘A’ posts considered persons with disabilities and whether the RBI was legally obligated to provide such relaxation for persons with disabilities in promotions.
2. Interpretation of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights, and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (PwD Act) and whether it mandates the RBI to grant relaxation in qualifying marks for persons with disabilities in promotional appointments.
3. Whether persons with disabilities should be entitled to the same benefits as Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) candidates, including relaxation in minimum qualifying marks for promotion to higher posts.
4. Whether the High Court’s direction to the RBI to consider the petitioner, Usha Nair, for promotion with relaxation in minimum qualifying marks for persons with disabilities was legally justified and should be upheld.

ARGUMENTS

Appellant’s (RBI) Arguments:

1. The RBI argued that there was no provision for reservation in promotional posts in Grade ‘A’ for persons with disabilities under the existing policy.
2. The RBI contended that the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, did not mandate reservation in promotions for persons with disabilities in Group ‘A’ posts.
3. They raised the issue of whether the modification made by paragraph 5 of the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 3rd December 2013, regarding the relaxation of minimum qualifying marks for SC/ST candidates, should apply retrospectively from 29th December 2005. The RBI argued that this OM did not apply to persons with disabilities in Group ‘A’ posts.

Respondent’s (Usha Nair) Arguments:

1. Mr Mohan, representing Mr Nair, argued that the RBI’s refusal to provide relaxation in minimum qualifying marks for persons with disabilities in promotional appointments was a violation of the PwD Act, 1995, and amounted to invidious discrimination against persons with disabilities.
2. Mr Mohan referred to previous court decisions, such as Leesamma Joseph, to support the claim that persons with disabilities should be entitled to promotions under the PwD Act, 1995.
3. He emphasized that the rights of disabled persons flow directly from the provisions of the Act and that the source of these rights is not the Office Memorandum (OM) but the provisions of the Act itself.
4. Mr Nair also argued that the RBI had issued new instructions on ‘Reservation in promotion’ under section 34 of the PwD Act, 2016 and that these should be followed.
5. The contention was that the High Court’s decision to grant relief to Mr. Nair by directing the RBI to consider him for promotion with relaxation in minimum qualifying marks for persons with disabilities was justifiable.

JUDGEMENT

1. The Supreme Court began by highlighting the importance of securing “social justice” and “equality of status and opportunity” as outlined in the Indian Constitution.
2. It emphasized that promoting social justice, particularly for the weaker and underprivileged sections of society, is a fundamental duty of the state.
3. The Court pointed out that the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, mandated both reservation and relaxation of standards in promotion for persons with disabilities in public employment.
4. The Court made it clear that the Act’s provisions are applicable not only to Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ posts but also to Group ‘A’ posts, such as the one sought by Mr Nair.
5. The judgment mentioned that the RBI’s failure to apply relaxed standards for persons with disabilities in promotional appointments was indefensible, and it criticised the RBI’s reluctance to identify a suitable Group ‘A’ post for reservation.
6. The Court concluded that Mr Nair had a statutory right to claim reservation in promotional appointments from the date the law came into effect.
7. The judgment directed the RBI to grant Mr. Nair a notional promotion effective from the date of filing his writ petition, and an actual promotion from the last date set by the High Court for compliance with its order.
8. Furthermore, the RBI was ordered to calculate and release the monetary benefits due to Mr Nair from the date of actual promotion and consider his promotion for retirement benefits.

In essence, the Supreme Court’s judgment upheld Mr. Nair’s rights and ordered the RBI to provide him with the necessary promotion, reservations, and benefits in accordance with the law.

REFERENCES

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/169712311/

This Article is written by Rhythm Sharma of Aligarh Muslim University, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Admin