TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether reservation for persons with disabilities under Section 33 of the Disabilities Act depended on prior identification of posts under Section 32, and (ii) whether the respondent could be denied appointment on the ground that reserved vacancies had not been worked out from the date the Act came into force.
Issue (i): whether reservation for persons with disabilities under Section 33 of the Disabilities Act depended on prior identification of posts under Section 32.
Analysis: Section 32 requires identification of posts that can be reserved, but that exercise is meant to facilitate implementation of Section 33 and not to postpone the statutory reservation itself. The provisions of Section 33 embody a legislative mandate of reservation for persons with disabilities, and the absence of timely identification cannot be used to defer that mandate indefinitely. The Act does not distinguish between different classes of government posts for this purpose, and no exemption had been shown.
Conclusion: Reservation under Section 33 was not dependent on prior identification in the manner suggested by the appellants, and the respondent's entitlement could not be defeated on that ground.
Issue (ii): whether the respondent could be denied appointment on the ground that reserved vacancies had not been worked out from the date the Act came into force.
Analysis: Once the respondent had qualified and stood within the merit position for the disabled category, the authorities were obliged to give effect to the reservation scheme from the date the Act operated. A contrary view would permit administrative delay to nullify the statutory benefit. Since the reservation itself ought to have been available, the plea that the vacancy position could not support appointment was rejected.
Conclusion: The respondent was entitled to the benefit of reservation and could not be denied appointment on the basis advanced by the appellants.
Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme for persons with disabilities had to be implemented in a manner that gives immediate effect to reservation and prevents administrative delay from defeating the benefit.
Ratio Decidendi: Reservation for persons with disabilities under Section 33 is a statutory mandate that cannot be postponed until post-identification is completed; identification of posts under Section 32 is facilitative and must operate so as to enable, not defeat, the reservation scheme.
TaxTMI 
