Three percent reservation does not include Merit Qualifiers

All India Confederation of the Blind vs. Goverment of NCT of Delhi

Filed Under: Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Petitioner: All India Confederation Of The Blind
Respondent: Goverment of NCT of Delhi
Citation: 123 (2005) Delhi Law Times 244
Court: In the High Court of Delhi
Judge: S Ravindra Bhat

Facts

A Writ Petition was filed by the All India Confederation of the Blind asking that the provisions of the Persons With Disabilities Act be applied for appointments to the posts of principal in schools run by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi. There were 90 vacancies for the posts of principals in Govt. Schools out of which 3 were reserved for disabled persons in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
 
The practice being followed by the Delhi Government in filling up these vacancies was as follows:


If any disabled candidate also qualified on the basis of merit, then such a candidate used to be appointed in the reserved category instead of the general category. As a result the selection of disabled candidates was restricted to 3% of the posts even if more candidates qualified on merit. This practice of filling up vacancies by adjusting candidates who were disabled but also qualified on merit, against the reserved quota, was challenged in this petition.

Another grievance that was raised was regarding the applicability of a DOPT Circular dated 1.2.99 regarding Age Concessions to SC/ST/OBC/Physically Handicapped Persons.

It was contended by the Delhi Govt. that the circular would be applicable only in the case of Grade A posts to be filled through open competitive examination. Since the post of a principal, although a Grade A post, was not filled through open competitive examination, the Delhi Govt. contended that the circular would not be applicable in this case.

Observations by the Court

The Court held that the practice followed by the Delhi Govt. in adjusting disabled candidates who qualified on merit, against the vacancies reserved for the physically disabled, was illegal and contrary to the objective of the Act.

The Court observed that this practice had the effect of limiting the representation of disabled persons to 3% of the posts even if more than that number qualified on merit. The Court observed that following this practice could result in a situation where disabled candidates would be better off without a quota since then there would have been no limitation or ceiling on their representation.

The Court thus held that while preparing the select list, disabled candidates who qualified on merit should be treated as general category and should not be included in the 3% reserved quota.

In regards to the applicability of the DOPT circular the Court held that the Circular provided for age relaxation of 10 years in the case of a Grade A posts to be filled through competitive examination and in other cases for 5 years.

Cases Referred:

  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India
  • Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995

Sections Referred:

  • RK Sabharwal and Ors vs. State of Punjab and Ors; JT 1995 (2) SC 351
  • Madan Singh Shekhawat vs. Union of India; 1996 (6) SCC 459
  • Deepal Girishbhai Soni vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd; IV (2004) SLT 860 = 2004 (5) SCC 385
  • Babu Parasakaikadi vs. Babu; VII (2003) SLT 614 = I (2004) CLT 5 (SC) = 2004 (1) SCC 681