LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Others v. Union of India & Others

Writ Petition (Civil) · Neutral citation not assigned (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 521 of 2008)Decided 30 Jun 2016
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 521 of 2008
Justice J. Chelameswar · Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

Background

The petitioners were employees of Prasar Bharati who were persons with disabilities. Under the 1995 Act, the Government had identified certain posts across Groups A to D as suitable for PWD and was statutorily required to reserve at least 3% of such identified posts for them. Two government office memoranda, however, granted the 3% reservation to identified posts in Groups C and D regardless of whether they were filled by direct recruitment or promotion, but limited the reservation for identified posts in Groups A and B only to direct recruitment, effectively denying PWD candidates reservation benefits for higher-level posts filled solely through promotion. The petitioners challenged this distinction as illegal and discriminatory.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that once a post is formally "identified" under Section 32 of the 1995 Act as suitable for a person with disability, the reservation mandated by Section 33 must apply to that post regardless of the mode of recruitment (direct recruitment or promotion), restricting reservation by recruitment mode would defeat the very purpose of the identification exercise. The Court rejected the Government's reliance on the general constitutional bar on "reservation in promotions" laid down in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, reasoning that Indra Sawhney dealt specifically with backward-class reservations under Article 16(4), which is not the constitutional basis for PWD reservation; PWD reservation rests instead on reasonable classification permissible under Article 16(1) and is not confined by the Indra Sawhney bar. It accordingly declared the two impugned memoranda illegal and inconsistent with the 1995 Act, directed the Government to extend 3% reservation to PWD in all identified Group A and B posts irrespective of recruitment mode, allowed the writ petition, and disposed of the connected civil appeal in the same terms.

Lesson Learnt

The general rule against reservation in promotions (from Indra Sawhney) applies only to backward-class reservations under Article 16(4); it does not limit disability-based reservation under the Persons with Disabilities Act, so once a government post is officially identified as suitable for persons with disabilities, the statutory reservation must apply to it regardless of whether the post is filled by direct recruitment or by promotion.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government and Ors.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Direct recruits, having come through the regular competitive process, rank above Special appointees, who entered through temporary appointments later regularised. However, it held the High Court was wrong to rank Compassionate appointees above Direct recruits merely because of an executive Government Order fixing their seniority by appointment date: such an executive order cannot override the basic service-law principle that employees selected through a regular process must rank senior to those who entered through exceptions like compassionate appointment. The Court further held that, as between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees, seniority should be fixed by date of regularisation rather than any other formula. The Transferred Cases were dismissed, and the Civil Appeals were disposed of/allowed to the extent needed to reflect this ranking (Direct recruits > Compassionate appointees > Special appointees, broadly, subject to date-of-regularisation for the latter two inter se).

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Nandeshwar Kumar

The Supreme Court allowed Bihar's appeal and set aside the reinstatement order. It held that eligibility had to be assessed under the 2006 recruitment rules governing Kumar's 2007 appointment, rather than solely by the date of his training certificate. He lacked a certificate from an NCTE-recognised training institution as required for that appointment, so obtaining the certificate before the NCTE law took effect did not establish eligibility. The Court noted the inadequate material behind earlier findings about the college's genuineness, but resolved this appeal on the statutory qualification requirement rather than declaring the certificate fake.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in the terms it set out. Because the Single Judge was dealing with a batch of employees, the Court held that each claimant must apply, and the authorities must verify each claim and pay the increment and revise pension and retiral dues accordingly. It extended the same benefit to the proforma respondents who had not joined the appeal. It directed the authorities to release the amounts due within 30 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of default. It also left the individual calculations to the authorities, relying on its earlier orders on arrears and interest.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Axay Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court granted leave and liberty to withdraw, and the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the petitioner free to file afresh in accordance with law. No findings were made on the underlying grievance.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the selection committee's eligibility decision, which was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the post and the advertisement. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, along with the other candidate's later appointment, and restored the committee's decision and the appellant's temporary appointment. It clarified that its conclusion applies only to the Recruitment Rules for this post and expresses no view on the general recognition of NIOS qualifications for other purposes.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Anil Kumar Tanwar vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the parties' agreed terms: the CBI was directed to file its reply to the pending application within two weeks, both sides were to exchange short notes of submissions before the Tribunal, neither side could seek adjournments when the matter is listed, and the Court requested the Tribunal to finally decide the matter (which involves a transfer) on 29 October 2026.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case