Ajay Kumar Pandey & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Background
A 2008 advertisement for 1,651 "Safai-Karmi" (sanitation worker) posts in District Mau, U.P., included reservations for disabled candidates under a 1999 Government Order (G.O.) that had earmarked specific job categories for specific kinds of disability: sweeper-type posts for deaf/partially-deaf candidates and posts like Peon/Daftry for candidates with locomotor disability. The appellants, who had locomotor disabilities, applied for the Safai-Karmi posts, took the selection tests, but were not appointed. They challenged the G.O. before the Allahabad High Court, which struck it down as discriminatory and unconstitutional for confining certain posts only to hearing-impaired candidates, though it still let the existing selections stand.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had misread Sections 32 and 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995: identifying which specific posts suit which specific disability (Section 32) is a job the appropriate Government must do based on the nature of the work, and the 3% overall reservation (1% each for blindness, hearing impairment, and locomotor disability under Section 33) applies across an establishment as a whole, not uniformly to every single post or cadre. Since the State had rationally identified sweeper-type posts as suitable for deaf/partially-deaf candidates and other posts for locomotor-disabled candidates, this was a legitimate exercise of the Government's discretion and not something a court should second-guess absent proof it was arbitrary. The Court restored the 1999 G.O. and rejected the appellants' claim to be appointed as Safai-Karmis, since that post category was never earmarked for candidates with locomotor disability.
Lesson Learnt
Reservation for persons with disabilities does not mean every disabled person can claim every post; the Government may validly match specific disability categories to specific job types based on the nature of the work, and courts will not strike down such classification unless it is shown to be irrational or arbitrary.