Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
18. Leave granted.
19. In view of our judgment today, the appeal is dismissed. SLP (C) No. 4650 of 2019:
20. Leave granted.
21. Having heard learned senior counsel for the appellant at some length, we may note that paragraph 4(C) of the counter affidavit states as follows: “(C) That Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Ltd. has appointed a committee for identification of the post upon which reservation in promotion will be applicable. The said Committee in its meeting held on 10.01.2017 decided that the post of Executive Engineer, Mechanical and Electrical in transmission, distribution SIDDARAJU v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.] and generation companies where the Executive Engineer has to visit sites and perform various acts personally, it is not advisable to keep such post under reservation. However, reservation will be applicable in promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, Computer Science, Information & Technology and Civil Engineering. The said decision of the company has not been challenged till date and thus binding on all the employees as per the provisions of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. On this ground also the Special Leave Petition filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable.”
22. It is clear that the Internal Committee of respondent No. 2 has applied its mind to the post of Executive Engineer, Mechanical and Electrical, and has opined that in the said post, reservation for the physically disabled will not be possible for the reason given therein.
23. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has pointed out that as per the Gazette Notification dated 31.05.2001, it is an Expert Committee that has to identify, keeping in view the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, and Section 32 in particular, suitable posts for persons with disabilities, and this has not been done in the present case. Since this point has not been argued in any of the cross appeals, we reserve liberty to the appellant to challenge the Internal Committee’s findings on grounds available to them in law. Apart from this, the impugned judgment does not call for interference. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
24. Needless to add if such a challenge succeeds, the three judgments pointed out by us in the Judgment in the lead matter, i.e., Civil Appeal No. 1567 of 2017 will have to be applied and followed. Civil Appeal No. 6092 of 2019:
25. The appeal is dismissed in accordance with today’s judgment. Interim order dated 08.07.2019 stands vacated. It has been contended before us that there are only 2 Group ‘A’ posts available/ identified as a result of which the reservation will have to be worked in accordance with the roster system. We may only clarify that we have not, in any manner, indicated as to how such system should be worked. Civil Appeal No. 6095 of 2019:
26. The appeal is dismissed in view of today’s judgment. Ankit Gyan Matters disposed of.