The recruitment quota extends for Promotions to People with Disabilities.

On Monday of June 28th, the Supreme Court declared that all persons with disabilities would be eligible for the reservation time of recruitment and promotions in their respective employment.

Speaking of the recruitment, though the recruited employee does or does not belong to the disability quota – the provision of denying the reservation for that employee is not applicable as long as the person at the time of promotion is disabled. 

During the time of which the court noted the absence of the rule of reserving during a promotion doesn’t deny the rights given by the 1995 act for the disabled person. 

R Subhash Reddy and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, who are on the bench of justices, denied the appeal which was filed by the Kerala government who were against the judgment of the Kerala High Court to the matter of Leesamma Joseph. The review was to give promotion to her in the quota of PwD on the grounds of compassion. However, the appointment initially was not from the PwD quota. 

So suggesting that the grounds of consideration is the only concern that they are in the PwD quotation of the promotion and not during the initial appointment. 

It is the story of justice for Leesamma, who had a disability of 55% and was working in the police department as a clerk in the year 1996 out of compassion brother’s demise. Over the seniority, she was appointed as a cashier on May 5th, 2015.

To this, Joseph claimed that in 2002 she was appointed as a senior clerk and in 2012 as a cashier with the related benefits. And also after which she was appointed as a chief superintendent. 

Her first approach was to go to the Kerala Administrative tribunal, where her application was dismissed in 2015. The request was asking for justice to the injustice for the denial of granting promotion under the act of 1995. 

To this plea, in 2020, the Kerala High Court approved in opposition to that action, the Kerala government moved the matter to the apex court. 

Apex court to this replied differently to that of Kerala Government. The court agreed upon the 1995 act where the reservations for PwD could be made even during the promotions. And in the judgment between the National Federation of the Blind vs Union of India in 2013, it said that the reservation should be made with regards to the available number of vacancies in the cadre.

By promotion or direct rec, recruitment no distinction can be made in between the posts. And exclaimed that it counteracts the provision of the legislative mandate by constraining only the recruitment process and not the promotions. 

The next that is raised is “whether, in section 33 as per 1995 act, reservation is conditional on se, section 32 which says, identification of posts?”

The division bench to the matter said it is manageable to enforce the legislation into th. Still, it is hard to rewrite the social viewpoint as it makes its way to find and overthrow the act’s intent in the first place, and to this, section 32 was the example.  

The court stressed that the nonexistence of the rules in the act of 1995 shouldn’t be the explanation for the denial of benefits of the reservation to the PwD while relating to the judgments of the State of Karnataka vs union of India vs Rajeev Kumar Gupta.

The session ended with the verdict where the selection of candidates should not make any discrepancies at the time of promotion as long as the employee is in the PwD.

If the respondent is not deemed in PwD for the promotion, it will violate the mandate of the Indian Constitution. So on recruitment, they must place the candidates ideally like everybody else in the cadre.