The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed the government's directive mandating reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities in government-aided educational institutions. This decision underscores the state's commitment to inclusivity and the enforcement of statutory rights for individuals with disabilities.
In 2018, the Kerala government issued an order extending the benefits of reservation to persons with benchmark disabilities in government-aided educational institutions. This move was in alignment with the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, which mandated a 3% reservation, and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which increased the reservation to 4%. The reservation was to be applied retrospectively, with 3% from February 7, 1996, to April 18, 2017, and 4% from April 19, 2017, onwards.
The case of K.J. Varghese v. State of Kerala & Others in 2022 brought this issue to the forefront. The court directed the managers of aided schools to implement the reservation as per the 2018 order. This decision was challenged, leading to an appeal where the Division Bench provided additional directions for filling up the vacancies. Although a Special Leave Petition was filed in the Supreme Court against the Division Bench's decision, the Supreme Court granted leave but did not stay the directions, allowing the High Court's directives to remain in effect.
Justice T.R. Ravi, in the current case, addressed challenges posed by various schools regarding the mode of appointment, which had not been settled in earlier cases. A significant point of contention was the method of reservation, specifically the "first vacancy" approach. According to the government order, the first vacancy in every block of 25 (for 4% reservation) or 33 (for 3% reservation) is to be reserved for persons with disabilities. Schools argued that this method was inappropriate for horizontal reservations, where reservations cut across various categories.
The court, however, upheld the government's method, stating that fixing roster points is a valid approach for filling backlog vacancies. It referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. National Federation of Blind & Others (2013) and the Gujarat High Court's decision in State of Gujarat v. Rajesh Motibai Desai (2017), both of which supported the use of roster-based reservations and the first vacancy method.
Furthermore, the court emphasized that the reservation policy aims to rectify historical injustices and ensure equal opportunities for persons with disabilities. It noted that the reluctance of certain educational institutions to implement these reservations undermines the objectives of the legislation. The court also highlighted that the government's directives are not only legal mandates but also moral imperatives to foster an inclusive society.
In conclusion, the Kerala High Court's decision reinforces the importance of adhering to reservation policies for persons with disabilities in educational institutions. It sends a clear message that non-compliance with such directives will not be tolerated and that the rights of individuals with disabilities must be upheld to achieve true inclusivity and equality in society.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.