Introduction

This case deals with the claim of reservation in promotions for persons with disabilities under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.

The respondent, A.K. Nair, a physically disabled RBI employee, was denied promotion to the post of Assistant Manager (Grade A) despite narrowly missing the cut-off. RBI refused to provide any relaxation or accommodation.

The Bombay High Court acknowledged the applicability of reservation but denied him direct relief. Dissatisfied, Nair appealed to the Supreme Court, raising key questions about reservation in promotions, reasonable accommodation, and statutory rights of disabled employees.

Facts of the Case

1. Employment:

   • A.K. Nair worked as Coin Manager in RBI’s Currency Management Department.

   • He had a locomotor disability due to polio.

2. Promotion Attempt (2003):

   • Appeared for internal promotion exam for Grade A post.

   • Fell short by 3 marks from general cut-off.

   • RBI refused relaxation despite disability.

3. High Court Proceedings (2006–2014):

   • Filed writ in Bombay High Court citing Section 33, PwD Act 1995.

   • HC held that horizontal reservation applies but denied individual relief, citing RBI rules.

4. Appeal to Supreme Court:

   • Nair appealed, arguing denial of promotion and lack of reasonable accommodation violated statutory and constitutional rights.

Issue of the Case

Main Issue:
Whether persons with disabilities are entitled to reservation in promotions under Section 33 of the PwD Act, 1995, and whether RBI’s refusal amounted to violation of statutory and constitutional rights.

Sub-Issues:

1. Is RBI bound to provide horizontal reservation for PwDs in promotional posts, including Group A?

2. Does failure to relax qualifying marks amount to discrimination/denial of reasonable accommodation?

3. Can relief such as retrospective promotion and monetary benefits be granted despite earlier denial?

Judgment

1. Reservation in Promotion Confirmed:

   • The Court held that PwDs are entitled to reservation in promotions under Section 33, PwD Act 1995.

   • Appointment includes both recruitment and promotion.

2. Evolution of Law Considered:

   • Rajeev Kumar Gupta (2016), Siddaraju v. Karnataka (2020), and Leesamma Joseph (2021) all upheld reservation in promotions.

   • PwD Act, 2016 (Section 34) expressly provides for promotion reservation.

3. RBI’s Approach Unjustified:

   • RBI failed to provide relaxation of 3 marks despite similar concessions to SC/STs.

   • Ministry of Finance (2006) directed parity for PwDs, but RBI ignored it.

   • This amounted to discrimination and breach of statutory rights.

4. Relief Granted (using Article 142 powers):

   • Notional promotion from 27 September 2006 (date of writ).

   • Actual promotion from 15 September 2014.

   • Arrears and retirement benefits to be recalculated and paid within 4 months.

5. Clarification:

   • Ruling limited to PwD reservation in promotions.

   • Other service requirements under rules remain unaffected.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court’s refusal and granted full relief to A.K. Nair. The judgment reaffirmed that:

• Persons with disabilities are entitled to reservation in promotions.

• Reasonable accommodation (like relaxation in marks) must be provided.

• Public authorities like RBI must act as model employers and uphold statutory rights of PwDs.

This case strongly reinforced the constitutional and statutory mandate to ensure equal opportunity in public employment for persons with disabilities.