Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ravindra Shankar Ukey, an Extension Officer (Panchayat) in Group-C post under Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, filed a writ petition seeking promotion to Group-B post on the basis of 3% reservation for persons with disabilities under Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. He relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Rajeev Kumar Gupta & others vs. Union of India & others (2016) 13 SCC 153. The respondents opposed the petition, with Respondent No.4 filing a reply stating that the petitioner had not produced any medical certificate or disability certificate to establish his disability. The court, after hearing the parties, held that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving that he is a person with disability as defined under the Act. The court noted that no medical certificate or disability certificate was placed on record. Additionally, the court observed that even if the disability was established, the employer is required to identify posts suitable for persons with disabilities before providing reservation in promotion, and the petitioner did not plead or prove that the Group-B posts were identified for persons with disabilities. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. The court also noted that the petitioner may approach the appropriate authority if he obtains a disability certificate and if the posts are identified.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Reservation in Promotion - Persons with Disabilities - Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - The petitioner claimed promotion to Group-B post based on 3% reservation for persons with disabilities. The court held that the petitioner failed to produce any medical certificate or disability certificate to establish that he is a person with disability as defined under the Act. The burden of proof lies on the claimant to show that he is a person with disability. The petition was dismissed as the petitioner did not discharge this burden. (Paras 2-5) B) Service Law - Reservation in Promotion - Identification of Posts - Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - The court observed that even if the petitioner had established his disability, the employer is required to identify posts suitable for persons with disabilities before providing reservation in promotion. The petitioner did not plead or prove that the Group-B posts were identified for persons with disabilities. Hence, the claim for promotion could not be granted. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, an Extension Officer (Panchayat) in Group-C post, is entitled to be promoted to Group-B post on the basis of 3% reservation for persons with disabilities under Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority if he obtains a disability certificate and if the posts are identified for persons with disabilities.
Law Points
- Reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities
- Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act
- 1995
- Burden of proof on claimant to establish disability
- Employer's obligation to provide reservation only if posts are identified
