Published On: September 28,2021 at 17:41 IST
The Supreme Court of India asked the Centre to issue guidelines for implementation of Reservation in Promotion for Persons with Disabilities (PwD) Category.
It directed to issue the guidelines at the earliest and not later than four months, in accordance with the proviso to Section 34 of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
“Provided that the reservation in promotion shall be in accordance with such instructions as are issued by the appropriate Government from time to time,” states the said proviso.
The Order was issued by the Court while it was hearing a Miscellaneous Application which was filed by the Central Government asking for the clarification with respect to its judgement in Siddaraju vs State of Karnataka.
In its Judgement of Siddaraju vs State of Karnataka, the Apex Court declared that declared that Persons with Disabilities have Right to Reservation in Promotions.
The Court in its response stated that there in doubt in the mentioned judgement and similarly directed the Centre to issue instructions in terms of proviso to Section 34 of the of the 2016 Act for implementing Reservation in Promotions for Persons with Disabilities.
A Bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao, B.R.Gavai and Sanjiv Khanna heard arguments from both the sides.
It should be noted here that the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Madhavi Divan was appearing for the Central Government and Advocate Rajan Mani was appearing for some of the party respondents.
During the previous hearing, the Court listened to Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari who stated that the Centre wants to end the effect of judgments effect of judgments under the face of seeking clarification.
The Court asked the ASG about the any instructions issued from Centre when Advocate Rajan Mani threw the light on the point that despite 5 years since the Act has come into force, no instructions have been issued in term of proviso to Section 34 of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
The ASG in response stated that no instructions yet had been issued from the Centre’s side.
Further adding to it, she also stated in her submissions, “the reason we are seeking clarification is so that our instructions do not become vulnerable.”
The Bench after hearing both the sides stated that the Court doesn’t found any ambiguity in the previous judgements, hence there is no reason to give any clarification to Centre.