Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking 4% Reservation For PwD Candidates In Promotion To Post Of District Judge, Cites Non-Existence Of Service Rules

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar noted that the present service rules only provided for providing 4% reservation in direct recruitments and not while considering promotions. Thus, in the absence of service rules, the court was not inclined to grant the relief prayed for.

“In view of the facts and circumstances, the very claim set out by the writ petitioner is untenable and not supported by the Service Rules. Thus, we are not inclined to consider the relief as such sought for in the present writ petition and consequently, this Writ Petition stands dismissed,” the court said.

The court also noted that the petitioner, K Mariappan, had already availed the benefit of the reservation during direct recruitment. The court thus noted that claiming the inadequate presence of Persons with Disabilities in the cadre of District Judges was unfounded and would only result in unjust acceleration of seniority.

“The petitioner cannot allege about inadequate presence of the Persons with Disabilities in the cadre strength of the State Judiciary or that there are any warranting or compelling circumstances existing in the State Judiciary to have further mechanisms of reservation to be followed in the grant of promotion, as it would only result in an unjust acceleration of seniority,” the court observed.

Mariappan was appointed as Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service in 2009 and was later promoted to the post of Sub-Judge serving at Periyakulam, Theni District. Mariappan argued that the 4% reservation provided for disabled persons was to be extended to promotional posts also in view of Section 34 of the Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016. He thus sought to be promoted to District Judge (Entry Level) in light of the benefits under the Act.

The State opposed the plea and argued that there was no rule in force to consider Mariappan's case. it was submitted that in the absence of service rules, promotion to a higher post could not be granted. It was also submitted that Mariappan was already appointed under the differently-abled quota and further reservation was impermissible under the Act.

On behalf of the Registrar General, it was argued that the Supreme Court had already discussed the issue of merit-based seniority and the relief in the present plea sought to re-agitate the same issue by seeking re-introduction of the rule of reservation in the District Judiciary in the form of horizontal reservation.

It was submitted that as per Article 233 of the constitution, the discretionary power was with the High Court to decide the introduction of service conditions and reservations. The registrar General further submitted that the High Court had framed the service rules for the judicial officers- The Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007 which allowed for communal reservation as well as other reservations in consonance with State Legislation. It was submitted that as per the policy decision of the High Court on the administrative side, persons with disability were provided reservation for direct recruitment at the entry-level alone.

The Registrar further argued that there was no discrimination and Mariappan's rights under Sections 3, 20, and 24 of the Act were not affected as he had availed the benefit of reservation at the time of recruitment as Civil Judge (Junior Division). It was also argued that the provision of non-discrimination and reservation was meant only for the employment of disabled persons and not for any fast-forward career progression.

The court observed that the state judiciary had effectively implemented the reservation policy in the selection process of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and also in the Direct Recruitment of District Judges.

Thus, finding no compelling circumstances that warranted extending the reservation mechanism, the court was not inclined to grant promotion to the petitioner and dismissed the plea.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.K.Thilageswaran

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.P.Ananda Kumar Government Advocate, Mr.M.Fakkir Mohideen

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 125

Case Title: K Mariappan v The Government of Tamil Nadi and Another

Case No: WP NO. 378 of 2023