Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced two pivotal cases:

• Government of India through Secretary v. Ravi Prakash Gupta (2010) 7 SCC 626: This case clarified that reservation under Section 33 is not contingent upon Section 32's identification for reservation but mandates the reservation of 3% vacancies categorized into 1% each for blindness/low vision, hearing impairment, and locomotor disability or cerebral palsy.
• Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind (2013) 10 SCC 772: This judgment emphasized the plain and unambiguous interpretation of statutory provisions, reinforcing that reservations under Section 33 should be applied uniformly across eligible categories without arbitrary distinctions.

These precedents were instrumental in shaping the Supreme Court's interpretation, ensuring that reservations align strictly with legislative intent and statutory language.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court's reasoning hinged on a meticulous interpretation of Sections 32 and 33 of the Disabilities Act. It underscored that:

• Section 32: Mandates the identification of posts eligible for reservation, subject to periodic reviews every three years to incorporate technological advancements.
• Section 33: Requires that at least 3% of vacancies in an establishment be reserved for persons with disabilities, subdivided equally into categories for blindness/low vision, hearing impairment, and locomotor disability or cerebral palsy.

The Court criticized the High Court for misconstruing these sections, particularly by interpreting the reservation as needing to apply to all job cadres indiscriminately. Instead, the Supreme Court clarified that the reservation is establishment-wide and not necessarily tied to every specific job category.

Moreover, the Court highlighted that the State Government's G.O. had appropriately identified posts for different disability categories, aligning with the statutory framework. The failure to conduct periodic reviews did not invalidate the G.O., as long as the initial identification adhered to legislative requirements.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the structured approach to disability reservations, ensuring that reservations are implemented in accordance with legislative mandates rather than arbitrary or broad interpretations. Key impacts include:

• Clarity in Reservation Implementation: Establishes that reservations are to be managed at the establishment level, respecting the specific nature of different job cadres.
• Administrative Compliance: Emphasizes the responsibility of the State Government to identify and reserve posts appropriately, ensuring adherence to Sections 32 and 33.
• Judicial Restraint: Limits the scope of judicial intervention, allowing administrative bodies to manage reservations within the framework of the law without overstepping.
• Future Precedents: Sets a clear precedent for similar cases, guiding lower courts and administrative bodies on the correct interpretation and application of reservation policies.

Sections 32 and 33 Explained

• Section 32: Requires governments to identify specific posts within establishments that can be reserved for persons with disabilities. This list should be reviewed every three years to incorporate changes like technological advancements.
• Section 33: Mandates that a minimum of 3% of total vacancies in an establishment be reserved for persons with disabilities, divided equally into:
  • 1% for persons with blindness or low vision.
  • 1% for persons with hearing impairment.
  • 1% for persons with locomotor disability or cerebral palsy.

Government Order (G.O.)

The G.O. dated 07.05.1999 was a directive by the Uttar Pradesh Government to identify and reserve specific posts for persons with disabilities. It detailed which job roles were suitable for different types of disabilities, ensuring that reservations were applied thoughtfully based on the nature of each position.

Ultra Vires

The term "ultra vires" refers to actions taken beyond the scope of legal authority. In this context, the High Court deemed the G.O. ultra vires, meaning it exceeded the legal powers granted by the Constitution and relevant Acts. However, the Supreme Court overturned this view, affirming that the G.O. was within the government's authority when properly interpreting Sections 32 and 33.