AJAY KUMAR PANDEY & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

AJAY KUMAR PANDEY & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

The High Court misinterpreted Sections 32 and 33 of the Disabilities Act, 1995; the State Government validly exercised its power under Section 32 to identify posts and under Section 33 to reserve percentages in an establishment (3% total, 1% each category), and such reservation applies to the establishment as a whole and to identified posts rather than to every cadre irrespective of job nature. The G.O. dated 07.05.1999 was therefore wrongly set aside by the High Court and is reinstated; the appellants were not entitled to appointment to Safai-Karmi posts because those posts were not identified for locomotor disability.

Parties
Appellants: AJAY KUMAR PANDEY & ORS.; Respondents: STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (writ a No.25148 of 2018)
Outcome
Appeal disposed of; order of the High Court dated 15.02.2019 insofar as it struck down G.O. dated 07.05.1999 is set aside
Legal Topics
Reservation, Identification of Posts Under Persons With Disabilities Act, 1995, Interpretation of Sections 32 and 33 of the Disabilities Act, Validity of Government Order, Appointment of Persons With Disabilities
Service Law Constitutional Law Disability Rights Administrative Law Reservation Identification of Posts Under Persons With Disabilities Act, 1995 Interpretation of Sections 32 and 33 of the Disabilities Act, 1995 Validity of Government Order +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AJAY KUMAR PANDEY & ORS.

Appellants

STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (writ a No.25148 of 2018)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the G.O. dated 07.05.1999 identifying posts for reservation under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 was ultra vires and rightly struck down by the High Court
  2. 2 Proper interpretation and interplay of Sections 32 and 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995
  3. 3 Whether 3% reservation and its distribution among disability categories applies to each cadre or to the establishment as a whole

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court misinterpreted Sections 32 and 33 of the Disabilities Act, 1995; the State Government validly exercised its power under Section 32 to identify posts and under Section 33 to reserve percentages in an establishment (3% total, 1% each category), and such reservation applies to the establishment as a whole and to identified posts rather than to every cadre irrespective of job nature. The G.O. dated 07.05.1999 was therefore wrongly set aside by the High Court and is reinstated; the appellants were not entitled to appointment to Safai-Karmi posts because those posts were not identified for locomotor disability.

Court Disposition

Appeal disposed of; order of the High Court dated 15.02.2019 insofar as it struck down G.O. dated 07.05.1999 is set aside

Orders

  • Order of the High Court dated 15.02.2019 striking down Government Order No. 4161/63-1-99-18(24)/97 dated 07.05.1999 is set aside
  • Appellants are not entitled to appointment to the Safai-Karmi posts as those posts were not identified for persons with locomotor disability under the G.O. dated 07.05.1999