Disabled, women not in 50% quota cap: SC

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Disabled_women_not_in_50_quota_cap_SC/articleshow/2335836.cms

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has said that the 50% cap on reservations mandated by it does not cover the 3% quota in force for the disabled as well as the one that may be introduced for women. This means, the pie for the unreserved categories will shrink further.

The clarification about the 50% ceiling, prescribed by the apex court in 1992 as part of its judgment upholding the Mandal quota for OBCs, came last week from a division bench comprising Justices S B Sinha and H S Bedi.

"The reservation for women and handicapped persons would not come within the purview thereof," said the bench.

The significant ruling implies that general-category applicants have only 47% of vacancies in government jobs to compete for, and that the available pie will further diminish if government were to introduce a quota for women.

The court also ruled against any differentiation among disabled persons. "A disabled is a disabled. The question of making any further reservation on the basis of caste, creed or religion ordinarily may not arise," it said. This would rule out any splintering of special quotas for disabled and any other such 'sub-category' along caste lines in keeping with OBC, SC and ST divisions.

The ruling was part of the verdict by which the apex court struck down a Madhya Pradesh government decision to terminate the employment of general-category disabled candidates under the 3% disabled quota as assistant teachers.

The state initially stood firm saying the reserved posts could be filled by disabled persons from any category, but caved in to litigational pressure from disabled SC students demanding precedence over disabled applicants from the general category. It changed its stand that the recruitment advertisement was not proper as it did not specify whether the recruitment was open to all or for only disabled SC/ST candidates.

The state's turnaround came in for severe criticism from the court, which set aside the MP High Court verdict and ordered restoration of the teachers' posts to disabled persons from the general category.

Under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, the states were obliged to make reservations for disabled persons, which Madhya Pradesh completely lost sight of, the bench said.

The court decision is a warning to the Union and state governments which routinely find it difficult to resist lobbying by reserved category associations. The previous NDA government at the Centre had to cave in to pressure from the parliamentary forums of SC and ST MPs to allow reservation in promotion for reserved-category recruits.

http://www.hindu.com/2007/09/05/stories/2007090562941500.htm

No caste quota for disabled

Legal Correspondent

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has held that no further reservation can be made available to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes or the Backward Classes within the quota for the physically handicapped as the disabled themselves constitute a special class.

“A disabled is a disabled. The question of making any further reservation on the basis of caste, creed or religion ordinarily may not arise,” said a Bench comprising Justices S.B. Sinha and H.S. Bedi.

“A reasonable reservation within the meaning of Article 16 of the Constitution should not ordinarily exceed 50 per cent as has been held by this court in the case of Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India [Mandal case]. However, reservation for women or handicapped persons would not come within the purview of this 50 per cent quota.”

The Bench was setting aside a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High court upholding the State government’s decision to terminate the services of handicapped persons selected from the “general category” on the ground that only those belonging to the “SC/ST/BC categories” could be appointed under the physically handicapped quota.

The High Court had allowed a petition from “disabled SC students” challenging the selection of candidates from the “general category,” contending that they should be given preference under the handicapped quota. The appeal was directed against this order.

The Madhya Pradesh government issued an advertisement stating vacant posts would be filled up from two categories — one for the SC and ST and the other for handicapped candidates (who were not further classified as belonging to the SC, the ST and the general category)

However, when a contempt petition was filed in the High Court, the State changed its stand and said the word “handicapped” was not mentioned in the heading of the advertisement and that the posts were meant only for the SC and the ST and not for “general category” candidates.

Writing the judgment, Mr. Justice Sinha said, “The Rule of Executive construction was given the complete go-by. Reasonableness and fairness, which is the hallmark of Article 14, was completely lost sight of.”

Indicting the government, the Bench said, “The officers of the State behaved strangely. It [the State] prevaricated only because a contempt proceeding was initiated. It chose to terminate the services of some of the employees who had been appointed. Such a course could not have been taken either in law or in equity.”

The Bench set aside the impugned judgment.