1 2025:CGHC:54457 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5182 of 2023 1 - Samaru Das Tandan S/o. Late Mantri Das Tandon, Aged About 49 Years R/o. Village Rahangi,block Bodla, Tahsil And Police Station Bodla, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Office Of The Directorate Of Public Instructions, 1st Floor, Block-C, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - District Education Officer, District Panchyat Kabir Dham, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chief Execuive Officer, District Panchayat Kabir Dham, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Patil, Advocate For State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 07/11/2025 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is serving as a Chemistry Lecturer (E-LB) at Government High School, Indori, District Kabirdham, seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to include his name in the final seniority list being prepared for promotion to the post of Lecturer (E) and Headmaster, Higher Secondary School (E-Class). The Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 petitioner contends that despite being eligible under the Scheduled Caste and Persons with Disabilities (PWD) category, his name has not been included in the provisional list. He, therefore, prays for appropriate directions to the respondents to consider his inclusion in the final seniority list in accordance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 seeking following reliefs : “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ, direction or order including a writ, direction or order in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents herein to make a seniority list properly applying the section 34 of the Rights of Persons with disabilities Act.2016. 10.2 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper according to the facts and circumstances of the case along-with the cost of the petitioner.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste community and is a physically handicapped person having 60% disability. He was appointed as Shikshakarmi Class-II under the provisions of the Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997 after being duly selected and approved by the competent authority on 18.06.2005. Pursuant to the approval, the respondent No. 4 issued an appointment order dated 20.06.2005 posting him at Primary School, Bodla, under the pay scale of Rs. 3250–60–4450. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Lecturer (Panchayat) in Chemistry subject by order of respondent No. 4 dated 27.09.2016 and was posted at Government High School, Indori, in the pay scale of Rs. 5300–150–8300. Thereafter, his services were absorbed from the Panchayat Department to the Government Department under the post of Lecturer as per order dated 28.09.2018 issued by respondent No. 2, where his name appeared at Sr. No. 8503 in the absorption list. The office of respondent No. 2 later issued an 3 official letter dated 15.06.2023 regarding preparation of a seniority list of Lecturers (LB) for promotion, directing respondent No. 3 to verify the same and make necessary corrections before 25.06.2023. In that provisional list, the name of petitioner appeared at Sr. No. 8495 under the Scheduled Caste category. However, the said list was subsequently cancelled by letter dated 28.06.2023 for the purpose of inviting objections before final publication. The petitioner, being a 60% physically handicapped person, holds a valid disability certificate issued by the District Hospital, Kabirdham, on 21.01.2019, and a Unique Disability ID. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned action of the respondents in not including the name of the petitioner under the appropriate reserved category of Scheduled Caste and Persons with Disabilities (PwD) in the seniority list of Lecturers (E/LB) prepared for promotion is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the constitutional and statutory rights of the petitioner. It is contended that the respondents have completely ignored the mandatory provisions contained in Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which categorically provides that every appropriate Government shall appoint in every Government establishment not less than four per cent of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength in each group of posts for persons with benchmark disabilities, of which one per cent shall be reserved for persons with locomotor disabilities. It is further submitted that the respondents have also overlooked the binding administrative instructions contained in Circular No. 36012/1/2020-Estt.(Res.- II) dated 17.05.2022, issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), Government of India, which specifically provides for reservation in promotion to Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBDs) in accordance with Section 34 of the Act of 2016 and in pursuance of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Siddaraju vs. State of Karnataka, Civil Appeal No. 1567 of 2017, decided on 28.09.2021. The learned 4 counsel would also submit that the respondents have disregarded the earlier provisions contained in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajeev Kumar Gupta and Others vs. Union of India and Others, reported in (2016) 13 SCC 153, wherein it has been clearly held that reservation for persons with disabilities is not confined merely to initial appointments but extends to promotions as well. Hence, by failing to extend the benefit of reservation in the promotional process, the respondents have acted contrary to the statutory mandate and binding judicial precedents. It is further urged that respondent No. 4, being the competent and final approving authority for the promotion list, is under a statutory obligation to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Disabilities Act, 2016, and the above-mentioned DoPT circular, and to consider the name of the petitioner under the reserved category of PwDs before finalizing the list. The Departmental Promotion Committee is equally duty-bound to scrutinize the eligibility of the petitioner under the said category and to ensure that the statutory reservation of four per cent for persons with benchmark disabilities is properly implemented in letter and spirit. The deliberate omission of the name of petitioner from consideration under the PwD category, despite the availability of a valid disability certificate, amounts to non-compliance with statutory provisions and a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Therefore, the impugned action of the respondents in preparing the seniority and promotion list without following the statutory reservation policy for persons with disabilities, as reinforced by the DoPT Circular dated 17.05.2022, is arbitrary, discriminatory, and liable to be set aside. It is thus prayed that necessary directions be issued to the respondents to consider and include the name of 5 the petitioner under the Scheduled Caste–PwD category in the final seniority and promotion list in accordance with law. 4. Learned State counsel, opposing the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for petitioner, would submit that the preparation of the seniority list of Lecturers (E/LB) and the process of promotion have been carried out strictly in accordance with the applicable service rules and administrative instructions issued by the State Government. It is contended that the name of petitioner has already been reflected in the provisional seniority list under his respective category, and due opportunity was provided to all concerned employees, including the petitioner, to raise objections or submit corrections before finalization of the list. Therefore, there is no violation of any legal or constitutional right of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the grievance of petitioner regarding non-consideration under the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) quota is misplaced, as the promotion process is based on seniority-cum-eligibility, and the benefit of reservation for persons with disabilities is duly applied in accordance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the circulars issued by the State Government. The respondents have not acted contrary to Section 34 of the said Act, and the allegation of deliberate exclusion is unfounded and baseless. The learned State counsel would also submit that the reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajeev Kumar Gupta (supra) is misplaced, as the said decision does not automatically entitle an employee to promotion unless he satisfies the prescribed eligibility criteria, seniority position, and availability of a vacancy under the reserved quota. The authorities are in the process of final verification of data and have not finalized the promotion list; hence, the apprehension of petitioner is premature and speculative. It is further argued that the respondents have acted bonafide and within the framework of law, following due administrative procedure and ensuring transparency. There has 6 been no arbitrariness or discrimination, and the claim of petitioner that his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 have been violated is without merit. Therefore, the petition is devoid of substance and deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents enclosed along with the petition. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon careful perusal of the pleadings and documents placed on record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste category and is a person with benchmark disability to the extent of 60%, as evidenced by the disability certificate issued by the District Hospital, Kabirdham, dated 21.01.2019. The said certificate, coupled with the Unique Disability ID, establishes that the petitioner is a “person with benchmark disability” as defined under Section 2(r) read with Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2016). The grievance of the petitioner is that despite being eligible under both Scheduled Caste and Persons with Disabilities (PwD) categories, his name has not been appropriately reflected under the PwD quota in the seniority list of Lecturers (E/LB) prepared for promotion to the post of Lecturer (E) and Headmaster, Higher Secondary School (E-Class). 7. The Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), has issued Circular No. 36012/1/2020-Estt.(Res.-II) dated 17.05.2022, in compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Siddaraju vs. State of Karnataka [Civil Appeal No. 1567 of 2017, decided on 28.09.2021]. The said circular explicitly provides that reservation in promotion for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities shall be granted in all Government establishments in accordance with Section 34 of the Act of 2016. It mandates that 4% of the total number of vacancies in the cadre 7 strength within Group “C”, from Group “C” to Group “B”, within Group “B” and from Group “B” to the lowest rung of Group “A” shall be reserved for PwBDs. It further clarifies that one per cent each shall be earmarked for blindness/low vision, deaf/hard of hearing, locomotor disability (including cerebral palsy and related categories), and one per cent combined for autism, intellectual disability, and multiple disabilities. Relevant part of the circular is quoted hereunder for ready reference : “Subject: Reservation in promotion to Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBDs). The undersigned is directed to say that the matter regarding reservation in promotion for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBDs) had been under litigation before various courts of law for quite some time, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its order, dated 28.9.2021, delivered in the 'Application for Clarification' in the matter of 'Siddaraju vs. State of Karnataka', Civil Appeal No.1567/2017, directed the Government to issue instructions on 'Reservation in Promotion', as provided in Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. 1.2 Accordingly, the following instructions are issued for grant of reservation in promotion to PwBDs, in the posts and services of the Central Government, as defined under Section 2(r) of the said Act, notified by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPWD). 2. QUANTUM OF RESERVATION 2.1 In case of promotion, four per cent of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength within Group 'C', from Group 'C' to Group 'B', within Group 'B' and from Group 'B' to the lowest rung of Group 'A' shall be reserved for PwBDs. Reservation in promotion shall be applicable in the cadres in which the element of direct recruitment, if any, does not exceed 75%. 8 2.2 Against the posts identified for each disability, one per cent each shall be reserved for PwBDs under clauses (a), (b) and (c), respectively, and one per cent combined, under clauses (d) and (e) below, unless otherwise excluded under the provisions of Para 3 hereinunder: - a. blindness and low vision; b. deaf and hard of hearing; c. locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy; d. autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness; e. multiple disabilities from amongst persons under clauses (a) to (d) including deaf- blindness. 2.3 The authenticity of any certificate, issued by the competent medical authority, may be got verified/re-verified by the appointing authority at the time of appointment.” 8. The purpose of the said circular is to ensure effective implementation of the statutory scheme under the Act of 2016, thereby ensuring equal opportunity and representation of persons with disabilities in public employment and career progression. Hence, while considering promotions and preparation of seniority lists, the authorities are duty-bound to apply the principles embodied in the aforesaid circular and extend the benefit of reservation to eligible employees with benchmark disabilities. 9. In the instant case, it appears that the claim of petitioner under the PwD category has not been examined in light of the aforementioned circular, despite the fact that he has submitted a valid disability certificate issued by a competent medical authority. The respondents are therefore required to reconsider the case of petitioner in accordance with the applicable legal provisions and administrative instructions. 10. Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in particular the fact that the petitioner is a physically disabled person, as 9 evidenced by the certificate issued by the District Hospital, Kabirdham, this Court directs the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner in light of Circular No. 36012/1/2020-Estt.(Res.-II) dated 17.05.2022, which governs reservation in promotion for persons with benchmark disabilities. If upon such consideration, the petitioner is found eligible under the said category, his case shall be considered for inclusion and promotion in a pragmatic and lawful manner, in accordance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the relevant rules. 11. The entire exercise, including verification of the eligibility of petitioner and application of the provisions of the aforesaid circular, shall be completed within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 12. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Shayna (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE