Pranav B Prem

The Kerala High Court, in a landmark judgment, clarified that the reservation provided under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), is confined to posts identified by the appropriate government under Section 33. Justice N. Nagaresh delivered the ruling while dismissing writ petitions filed by Section Officers of Mahatma Gandhi University seeking promotion under the quota for differently-abled persons.

Case Background

The petitioners, Shoyab K.A. and Kavitha K.S., were Section Officers at Mahatma Gandhi University, belonging to the benchmark disability category with more than 40% disability. They challenged the rejection of their promotion claims under the quota for persons with disabilities. Their argument hinged on the reservation provisions in the RPwD Act and relevant Office Memorandums issued by the Central Government.

The petitioners cited the Office Memorandum dated May 17, 2022, issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, which mandates that for promotions by non-selection, eligible candidates with benchmark disabilities within the normal zone of consideration should be considered against reserved vacancies. They contended that these guidelines should apply to their promotions.

The University argued that the petitioners’ promotional posts, such as Assistant Registrar, Deputy Registrar, and Joint Registrar, had not been identified as suitable for persons with disabilities. It asserted that, in the absence of such identification, no legal right for promotion could be claimed under the RPwD Act.

Court’s Observations

Justice N. Nagaresh emphasized that Section 34 of the RPwD Act provides reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities only against posts identified under Section 33. Section 33 mandates the appropriate government to:

1. Identify posts in establishments suitable for persons with benchmark disabilities.

2. Constitute an expert committee for this purpose with adequate representation from persons with disabilities.

3. Review identified posts periodically, at intervals not exceeding three years.

The Court noted that as long as higher promotional posts—such as Assistant Registrar, Deputy Registrar, or Joint Registrar—are not identified as suitable for appointment of persons with disabilities, the petitioners cannot claim a legal right to reservation in promotion. The judgment stated:

“Going by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the reservation contemplated under Section 34 of the Act can be only against the posts identified for reservation under Section 33. As long as higher promotional posts of the petitioners are not identified, the petitioners do not have any legal right to claim promotion.”

Dismissal of Writ Petitions

The Court rejected the petitioners’ reliance on the Office Memorandum and judgments such as Reserve Bank of India v. A.K. Nair and Leesamma Joseph, stating that the principle of identifying posts for reservation applies uniformly. It observed that extending reservation to non-identified posts would violate the statutory framework of the RPwD Act.

Cause Title: SHOYAB K.A and another v. State of Kerala and others.

Case No: WP(C) NO. 15097 OF 2024

Date: December-20-2024

Bench:  Justice N. Nagaresh 

[Read/Donwload order]