Court :Supreme Court of India
Citation :Civil Appeal No. 59 of 2021
Case Title: The State of Kerala & Ors. V. Leesamma Joseph
Date of Order:June 28, 2021
Bench:Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Parties:Appellant–The State of Kerala & Ors
Respondent – Leesamma Joseph
SUBJECT
The bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and R. Subhash Reddy was hearing an appeal filed by the State of Kerala against a judgement of the Kerala High Court granting the right of reservation in promotions for people with disabilities.
The case commentary seeks to evaluate the case of state of kerala & ors vs. leesamma joseph. This issue centres on Article 16 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees equal opportunity in the workplace. In accordance with the Indian Constitution, everyone should have access to opportunities. The improvements made as a result of the Right to Equality guaranteed by the Constitution have benefited Indian society. The architects of the Constitution wanted to establish a society where everyone is treated fairly. Is there a legal distinction between physically challenged people and others when it comes to promotions? As a result, this case calls for an examination of Sections 32 and 33 of the People with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act,1995 in this accord.
INTRODUCTION
“THE ELEPHANT NEEDS A THOUSAND TIMES MORE FOOD THAN THE ANT BUT THAT IS NOT AN INDICATION OF INEQUALITY” MAHATMA GANDHI
BACKGROUND
The People with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights, and Full Participation) Act of 1995 served as the legal foundation for the action. At the outset, it is important to state the facts to provide a better understanding. The respondent was appointed in 1996 for the position of typist/clerk in the Department of Police on the basis of compassion following the death of her brother while serving. The respondent is a permanently disabled person who suffers from Post-Polio residual paralysis (L) Lower Limb.
She later passed the tests for promotion, and in July 2001, she was changed to the category of Lower Division Clerk. She eventually received promotions to the positions of senior clerk on September 16, 2004, and cashier on May 5, 2015, based on seniority lists for test-qualified Lower Division clerks. Considering everything, the respondent claimed that she was qualified for promotion to the position of senior clerk beginning on July 1, 2002, followed by the position of cashier beginning on May 20, 2012, and finally the position of junior superintendent beginning on the date of her qualification. .
After stating the facts, let’s take a quick look at the case’s procedural history. After the Kerala Administrative Tribunal rejected the respondent’s claim in an order dated February 27, 2015, the matter was discussed before the High Court of Kerala. The prior verdict was annulled on March 9, 2020, when the Kerala High Court rendered its decision in favour of the respondent.
Finally, on January 7, 2021, the knowledgeable attorney representing the appellants filed an appeal, arguing that because the respondent wasn’t hired under the 1995 law’s person with disability quota and was instead hired on the basis of compassion, she is ineligible to make this claim regarding promotion. After considering a number of factors, the Supreme Court decided not to interfere with the respondent’s relief because she was retired and merely received cash benefits, but it did grant her leave to examine the legal matter. Due to the respondent’s absence, the court named Mr. Gaurav Agrawal as Amicus Curiae to provide competent support.
ISSUES RAISED
Whether the 1995 Act requires disability-related reservations in marketing
Whether the designation of posts required by Section 32 of the 1995 Act determines whether reservations under Section 33 of that Act are applicable
Whether a promotion can be denied to a PwD in the absence of a provision in the regulations for a reserve in promotion for PwD
Whether the responder qualifies for promotion by virtue of her status as a person with a disability even though she was not appointed under the PwD quota
ARGUMENTS OF APPELLANTS
Although the court ruled in Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka & Ors [2020 3 SCALE 99] that Sections 32 and 33 of the 1995 Act required 3–4% reservation for people with disabilities, it was argued that this mandate cannot be read to suggest that it would apply to promotions as well.
Despite having a physical disability, the appellant argued that the respondent was not eligible for a reservation since she was appointed on compassionate grounds rather than through a recruiting process under the 1995 Act because her brother had passed away.
In accordance with the 1995 Act, the government had already issued a number of orders that provided for a 3–4% reservation in appointment matters.
AMICUS CURIAE SUBMISSIONS
Amicus Curiae Mr. Gaurav Agrawal guided the court through a conspectus of legal rulings addressing the issue of reservation in support of the 1995 Act.
The knowledgeable Amicus Curiae stated that he had looked over the documentation in Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka & Ors [2020 3 SCALE 99] and claimed that it is unrelated to the problem at hand.
A thorough written note outlining the four issues raised by the judicial pronouncements was submitted.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
When considering the intent underlying the aforementioned Act’s provisions, particularly Section 47, the court determined that denying PwDs promotion would amount to negating the statutory mandate.
Based on its ruling in Government of India & Anr v. Ravi Prakash Gupta & Anr [(2010) 7 SCC 626], the court mandated that identification of posts be required in every establishment until exempted under Section 33. The court also accepted that it was never the intention of the legislature for Section 32 to be used to frustrate benefits under Section 3.
In Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission [2021(2) SCALE 468], where the phrase “reasonable accommodation” was interpreted as a feature provided by the government establishments to ensure that PwDs enjoy and exercise their rights equally with others, the court had done extensive reading and interpretation of Section 20 of the Act read with Section 2(y) of the Act. The court’s decision was affirmed.
The Court ruled that because such discrimination would be against India’s constitution, the way of entry into the workforce cannot be used as a basis for a case of discriminatory promotion.
CONCLUSION
There is no question that the Hon. Supreme Court’s ruling has broad ramifications for the law. It goes without saying that the court’s decision to uphold Article 16’s constitutional rights serves as a significant precedent for cases to come. Despite the numerous setbacks, this decision is crucial for preserving the idea of equality in the public’s perception.
WRITTEN BY AREEBA AHAD (B.A.LL.B 10th SEM) VITASTA SCHOOL OF LAW AND HUMANITIES
