Supreme Court: In the matter where the employees of Prasar Bharati, who are ‘persons with disability’ (PWD), had alleged that they have been deprived of the statutory right under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 with respect to the Group A and B posts out of the four A to D Groups of Prasar Bharati, the Court directed the Government to extend three percent reservation to PWD in all identified posts in Group A and Group B, irrespective of the mode of filling up of such posts.
It was contended by the respondents that as per the Regulations framed under the Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Act, 1990, Memorandum II provides for reservation in favour of PWD to the extent of three per cent in all the IDENTIFIED POSTS in Prasar Bharati, when these are filled up by direct recruitment. However, it provides for three per cent reservation in IDENTIFIED POSTS falling in Groups ‘C’ and ‘D’ irrespective of the mode of recruitment i.e. whether by direct recruitment or by promotion. As a consequence, the statutory benefit of three per cent reservation in favour of PWD is denied insofar as IDENTIFIED POSTS in Groups ‘A’ and ‘B’ are concerned, since these posts, under relevant regulations of Prasar Bharati are to be filled up exclusively through direct recruitment.
The bench of J. Chelameswar and Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ rejected the said contention and held that once a post is identified under Section 32 of the 1995 Act, it means that a PWD is fully capable of discharging the functions associated with the identified post. Once found to be so capable, reservation under Section 33 of the 1995 Act to an extent of not less than three per cent must follow. Once the post is identified, it must be reserved for PWD irrespective of the mode of recruitment adopted by the State for filling up of the said post. The Court, hence, held the impugned memoranda to be illegal and inconsistent with the 1995 Act. [Rajeev Kumar Gupta v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine SC 651, decided on 30.06.2016]