Reservation will be applicable to PwD even for promotions

• Supreme Court ruled that reservation for Persons with Disabilities (PwD) mandated by Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, is applicable to promotions as well.
• A PwD can avail the benefit of reservation even if he/she was not appointed under the PwD quota.

• The important thing is the employee should be a ‘person with disability’ (PwD) at the time of the promotion to avail of the disabled quota.
• The 1995 Act [Persons with Disabilities Act of 1995] does not make a distinction between a person who may have entered service on account of disability and a person who may have acquired disability after having entered the service.

• The mode of entry in service cannot be a ground to make out a case of discriminatory promotion.
• Responsibility to provide equal opportunities to disabled persons does not end with giving them reservation at the time of recruitment.

• The supreme court has stated that case while upholding the constitutional validity of Art 16(4A) held that it is an enabling provision i.e. State is not bound to make such reservations in Constitutional Provisions with regard to reservations:

• Article 16(4) – Empowers State to provide reservation for any backward classes of citizens.
• Article 16(4a) – introduced in 1995 by 77th Constitutional Amendment Act – Empowers State to provide reservation in promotion in favour of SC and ST.
• Both the above provisions empower the State from making reservations if, “in the opinion of the State”, these groups are “not adequately represented”

Previous Judgements on this matter:

• In its landmark 1992 decision in Indra Sawhney vs Union of India, the Supreme Court had held that reservations under Article 16(4) could only be provided at the time of entry into government service but not in matters of promotion.
• On June 17, 1995, Parliament, acting in its constituent capacity, adopted the 77th Constitutional amendment by which clause (4A) was inserted into Article 16 to enable reservation to be made in promotion for SCs and STs.

• The Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj vs Union Of India 2omotions.

• However, if it seeks to do so then it must collect quantifiable data on three parameters —

1. The backwardness of the class
2. The inadequacy of the representation of that class in public employment
3. The general efficiency of service would not be affected.

• In Jarnail Singh vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta case of 2018, the Supreme Court held that reservation in promotions does not require the state to collect quantifiable data on the backwardness of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.

• The court upheld the argument that once various caste groups were listed as SC/ST, this automatically implied they were backward.

• However, earlier discussed judgments gave an impression that reservations were an entitlement for weaker sections of society but that it should be viewed only as an enabling provision.