Holding

The 1 March 1979 letter was limited to recruitment for the 1978 examination and did not amend the earlier GOs; therefore the 2% reservation for physically handicapped persons remains applicable, and the appellant must be appointed to the Provincial Civil Service.

Summary

The appellant, Daya Ram Tripathi, a physically handicapped candidate, cleared the 1982 Combined State Services Examination and was entitled to a reserved post in the Uttar Pradesh Provincial Civil Service (Executive Branch) under a 2% reservation policy announced by GO No. 43/90/66 dated 18 July 1972 and reaffirmed by GO No. 7/4/1971. The State Government, however, offered him a post of Manager, Marketing and Economic Survey, invoking a letter dated 1 March 1979 which it claimed had revoked the reservation for disabled persons in the Provincial Civil Service. The Allahabad High Court dismissed his writ petition, holding that no reservation existed. On special leave, the Supreme Court examined whether the 1979 letter actually amended the earlier GOs and whether the reservation remained in force. The Court held that the letter was confined to recruitment for the 1978 examination and did not alter the 1972 and 1978 GOs, and that the State could not deny the appellant his reserved appointment. Consequently, the Court directed the Government of Uttar Pradesh to appoint the appellant to the Provincial Civil Service with full benefits. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the letter dated 1 March 1979 revokes the 2% reservation for physically handicapped persons in the Uttar Pradesh Provincial Civil Service (Executive Branch) established by GO No. 43/90/66 (1972) and GO No. 7/4/1971 (1978).
Whether the State Government is bound to appoint a physically handicapped candidate to a reserved post in the Provincial Civil Service under the existing reservation policy.
Whether the reservation policy is consistent with the Constitution of India, particularly Article 38.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 136, s. Article 226, s. Article 38

Subjects

reservationphysically handicappedpublic service appointmentUttar Pradeshgovernment orderconstitutional lawaffirmative action

Judgment

A DAYA RAM TRIPATHI
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

DECEMBER 12, 1986
B [0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND V. KHALID, JJ.]

Social Justice to physically handicapped persons-Appointment
to the Provincial Civil Se~vice (Executive Branch) denied to the appel-
lant on the plea that 2% reservation under G.O. No. 43/1)()/6() Appt. 4
dated 18. 7.1972 had been revoked by the Government letter dated
c 1.3.1979--Construction and scopt of the letter dated 1.3.1979 ex-
plained-Constitution of India, 1950, Article 38.

As far back as 1972, the Uttar Pradesh Government by G.O_ No.
43/90/66-Apptt. 4 dated July 18, 1972 annoonced "for the 'physically
handicapped persons, the reservation in all the services under the
D Government shall be 2%". AU the Government Departments were
directed to follow the policy for reservation in services accordingly.
Later, by G.0- No. 7/4/1971-Personnel-2 dated May 20, 1978 the
Government of Uttar Pradesh while affirming the "reservation of 2%
posts for the. appointment of disabled persons in all the services under
the Government", defined who a physically handicapped person was.
E Pursuant to a letter from the Public Service Commission there was .a
proposal not to reserve any post for disabled persons in the Provincial
Civil Service. This proposal, however, did not result in the issuance of
any G.O. by the Government- But the Public Service Commission was
informed by the Government by their letter dated 1-3.1979 that none of
the categories of disabled persons was suitable for appointment to the
F U-P- Civil Service (Executive Branch) and no reservation for disabled
persons might be made in the Provincial Civil (Executive Branch)
Service- In 1981 the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh
addressed all the Secretaries lo the Government, Head of Department
and Commissioners in Uttar Pradesh pointing out that though a provi-
-\...' '
..

sion for reservation of 2% posts was made for physically handicapped
G persons by G_o_ No. 43/90/66 dated July 18, 1972 in the services under
the State Government, appointments bad not been made of handicap-
ped persons in accordance with the reservation. "I:he necessity of
maldng appointments of physically handicapped persons to the
reserved posts was impressed upon all the Secretaries, Heads of Depart-
ments and Commissioners and it was particularly brought to their
H attention that 1981 bad been declared as "the International Year for

574
'
/

,,
..
DAYARAMTRIPATHI v. STATEOFU.P. 575

the physically Handicapped Persons'. It was also directed that vacan· A
cieS should be carried forward and efforts should be made to ensure
that the maximum number of physically handicapped persons were
appointed.

The appeUant, a disabled person who was successful at the com·
blned State Services Examination held in 1982 by the· Uttar Pnidesh B
Pubiic Service Commis!lion was offered the post of Manager Marketing '
and Economic Survey instead of a post in the Provincial Civil Service
(Executive) Branch on the ground that the reservaticin of 2% to the
disabled persons had been revoked by the Government letter dated
1.3.1979. The Writ Petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the
AUahabad High Court. Hence the appeal by special leave. c
AUowing the appeal, the Court,

Held: A perusal of the letter dated 1.3.1979 indicates that it was
confined to "recruitment on the basis of Combined State Services
Examination, 1978". It was not intended to be an amendment of G.O. D
No. 43/90/66 dated July 18, 1972 or G.O. No. 7/4/1971 dated May 20,
1978. It was not intended to depart from general rule of reservation of
2% posts in favour of disabled persons in the case of the Provincial Civil
Service (Executive Branch). Further in the face of the communication
in 1981 by the Chief Secretary drawing attention of aU departments to
the G.O. 1972, it is now futile for the Government to contend that the E
appeUant cannot be appointed to the Provincial Civil Service (Executive

- Branch). Having announced very rightly their determination to rehabi-
litate j)hysicaUy handicapped persons, by reserving posts for them in aU
the services of the Government, the Government cannot now create
needless hurdles. (S77C-H) ·
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4460
of 1986.

From the Judgment and Order dated 16.10.1985 of the Allaha-
bad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5440 of 1983.
G
S.N. Kacker and J.M: Khanna for the Appellant:

Anil Dev Singh and Mrs. Shobha Dikshit for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 1 S.C.R.

A CHINNAPPA REDDY, J: Special leave granted. The appellant
is a physically handicapped person. He has an orthopaedic problem.
He suffers from a permanent impediment of the left leg, the result of
an old compound fracture. His impediment did not prevent him from
· good academic performance. He went further. He appeared at the
combined State Services Examination held in February, 1982 by the
B Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission. According to the advertise-
ment issued by Commission, one post in the Provincial Civil Service
(Executive Branch) was reserved for handicapped persons. However,
the appellant was offered the post of Manager, Marketing and
Economic Survey instead of a post in the Provincial Civil Service
(Executive Branch). He was not offered a post in the Provincial Civil
C Service (Executive Branch) on the ground that the reservation of 2%
in the Uttar Pradesh Civil Services for physically handicapped persons
had been revoked by the State Government by their letter dated
1.3.1979 in regard to the Provincial Civil Service (Executive Branch).
Thereupon the appellant filed a Writ Petition under Article.226 of the
Constitution in the Allahabad High Court. The Writ Petition was dis-
D missed by the High Court on the ground that there was no reservation
of posts for physically handicapped persons in the Provinpial Civil
Service (Executive Branch). The appellant has come before us under
Article 136 of the Constitution.

E · As far back as 1972, the Uttar Pradesh Government by G.O. No.
43/90/66-Apptt. 4 dated July 18, 1972 announced "for the physically
handicapped persons, the reservation "in all the services under the

-
Government shall be 2%." All the Government Departments were
directed to follow the policy for reservation in services accordingly.
Latter, by G.O. No. ·7/4/1971-Personnel-2 dated May 20, 1978 the
F Government of Uttar Pradesh while affirming the "reservation of 2%
posts for the appointment of disabled pel"S()nS in all the services under
the Government," defined who a physically handicapped person was
and added the following instruction:-

"That in .this context, I have to make it clear that the physical
G disability should not be of the nature which may cause interference in
discharge of duties and obligations attached to the concerned service.
Accordingly if the service is· as such that it require continuous use of
eye, then in such case reservation cannot be given to the blind persons.
In the same manner if some services specifically involves the hearing
faculty then no reservation can be given to the deaf persons in such
H services and in a service where the use of a particular organ of the body
'
DAYARAMTRIPATHiv. STATEOFU.P. [REDDY,J.I 577

is to be used then the person disabled of that particular organ cannot A
be given reservation in that service: On the basis of tlie principle every
department will issue necessary orders regarding reservation for the
post under their subordination."

It appears that there was some discussion within the department
)+ pursuant to a letter from the Public Service Commission and their was a B
proposal not to reserve any post for disabled persons in the Provincial
Civil Service. This proposal, however, did not result in the issuance of
any G.O. by the Government. But the Public Service Commission was
informed by the Government by their letter dated 1.3.1979 that none
I of the categories of disabled persons was suitable for appointment to

•
the U.P. Civil Service (Executive Branch) and no reservation for dis- C
abled persons might be made in the Provincial Civil (Executive
Branch) Service. A perusal of the letter dated 1.3.1979 indicates that it
was confined to "recruitment on the basis of Combined State Services
Examination, 1978". It was not intended to be an amendment of G.O.
No. 43/90/66 dated July 18, 1972 or G.O. No. 7/4/1971 dated May 20,
1978. It was not intended to depart from general rule of reservation of D
2 % posts in favour of disabled persons in the case of the Provincial
Civil Service (Executive Branch). Again in 1981 the Chief Secretary,
Government of Uttar Pradesh add.ressed all the Secretaries to the
Government, Heads of Departments and Commissioners in Uttar
Pradesh pointing out that though a provision for reservation of 2%
posts was made for physically handicapped persons by G.0. No. 43/'Xl/ E
66 dated July 18, 1972 in the services under the State Government,
appointments had not been made of handicapped persons in accord-
ance with the reservation. The necessity of making appointments of
physically handicapped persons to the reserved posts was impressed
upon all the Secretaries, Heads of Departments and Commissioners
and it was particularly b'rought to their attention that 1981 had been' F
declared as 'the International Year for the Physically Handicapped
Persons'. It wa,; also directed that vacancies should be carried forward
and efforts should be made to ensure that' the maximum number of
physically handicapped persons were appointed. In the face of this
communication from the Chief Secretary, we think that it is now futile
for the Government to contend that the appellant cannot be appointed G
to the Provincial Civil Service (Executive Branch). Having announced
their determination, very rightly too in our opinion, to rehabilitate
physically handicapped persons, by reserving posts for them in all the
. services of the Government, the Government cannot now create needc
less hurdles. The State Civil S~rvice (Executive Branch) is a large
enough service which can easily accommodate physically handicapped H
578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 1 S.C.R.

A persons in suitable posts. A direction will, therefore, be issued to the
Government of Uttar Pradesh to appoint the appellant to the Uttar
Pradesh Civil Service (Executive Branch) with effect from the date ·on
which he should have been appointed in the ordinary course. He will
be entitled to all the other service benefits. He is also entitled to costs.
The appeal is allowed accordingly.
8
•
__.,._, .
S.R. Appeal allowed.

4''