Siddaraju vs State of Karnataka - Case Analysis

Introduction of Siddaraju vs State of Karnataka

Siddaraju vs State of Karnataka is a landmark decision regarding the rights of persons with disabilities (PwDs) particularly in the context of employment and promotional reservations. The decision in this case highlights the role of judiciary in enforcing the rights of PwDs and ensuring compliance with legislative provisions aimed at fostering inclusivity in the workforce.

Historical Context and Facts of Siddaraju vs State of Karnataka

In the case at hand, Dr. Siddaraju, the petitioner was a person with a disability and a non-Karnataka Administrative Service (KAS) cadre officer. 

Announcement of Promotion Positions

The Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (DPAR) announced six positions for promotion from non-KAS cadres to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS). 

Denial of Promotion

The petitioner who met the eligibility criteria was not recommended for promotion. This exclusion was linked to the failure of the establishment to implement the mandated 3% reservation for persons with disabilities under the law.

Application in Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)

Aggrieved by the decision, the petitioner filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). However, CAT dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner had not challenged the Office Memorandum.

Appeal in the High Court

The petitioner filed an appeal in the High Court of Karnataka against the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). However, the High Court upheld the decision of the CAT.

Special Leave Petition

Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court of Karnataka the petitioner filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court against the decision of the High Court.

Decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the provision for reservations in promotions for persons with disabilities must be mandatorily followed by both the Union and State Governments. The Supreme Court dismissed the orders passed by CAT and the High Court of Karnataka and ruled in favour of the petitioner.

Miscellaneous Petition by Union of India

A miscellaneous application was filed by the UOI and the questions raised were adjudicated in a separate judgement delivered on 28.09.2021.

Issue addressed in Siddaraju vs State of Karnataka

The main questions which was addressed in this case were-

• Whether vacancies for persons with disabilities must be computed solely based on identified posts or on both identified and unidentified posts?
• Whether persons with disabilities can be given a reservation at the time of induction from SCS or non-SCS to IAS?
• Whether the decision intends to provide for reservation in promotion beyond the level of Group A or up to the lowest level of Group A?
• Whether the decision in Siddaraju vs State of Karnataka be based on the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 or the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016?

Legal Provisions involved in Siddaraju vs State of Karnataka

Section 32 of the PWD Act, 1995

Section 32 of the Act provides that Appropriate Governments shall-

(a) Identify posts in the establishments, which can be reserved for the persons with disability

(b) At periodic intervals not exceeding three years, review the list of posts identified and up-date the list taking into consideration the developments in technology. 

Section 33 of the PWD Act, 1995

Section 33 of the Act states that-

Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less than three per cent. for persons or class of persons with disability of which one per cent. each shall be reserved for persons suffering from- 

(i) Blindness or low vision

(ii) Bearing impairment

(iii) Locomotor disability or cerebral palsy, in the posts identified for each disability

Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any department or establishment, by notification subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section.

Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

Section 34 of the Act provides that a minimum of 4% of total vacancies in each cadre strength of government establishments must be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities. This reservation is broken down as follows:

• 1% each for the following categories:
  • Blindness and low vision
  • Deaf and hard of hearing
  • Locomotor disabilities, including conditions like cerebral palsy, dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy
  • Autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness
  • Multiple disabilities from the aforementioned categories, including deaf-blindness.
• The government can exempt specific establishments from these provisions based on the nature of the work, in consultation with the Chief Commissioner or State Commissioner.

Judgment and Impact of Siddaraju vs State of Karnataka

The decision of the Supreme Court in this case marked an important advancement in the legal protection and promotion of rights for persons with disabilities (PwDs). The Court reaffirmed its decision on the mandatory implementation of reservation policies in promotions for PwDs, in accordance with Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. 

In this case, the Union of India sought clarity regarding the scope and applicability of the judgement of the Supreme Court in 2020 concerning the implementation of reservations in promotions for PwDs. The Court held that there was no ambiguity in its previous ruling and it did not warrant further clarification. The judgement categorically directed the UOI to issue instructions within a period of four months from the date of the judgement and ensure that reservations in promotions would be provided as directed by the Act, 2016.

Conclusion

Siddaraju vs State of Karnataka highlights the role of the judiciary in protection of the rights and in ensuring equal opportunities for persons with disabilities. The decisions delivered in 2020 and 2021 show a progressive stance of the judiciary. The Court in this case affirmed the obligation of governments to implement reservation policies and to promote employment for PwDs. It also highlighted the need for a uniform computation of vacancies across various posts.