The Kerala High Court has clarified a critical boundary in affirmative action for persons with disabilities, rejecting the claim that beneficiaries are entitled to overlapping reservations in both promotion and transfer-based appointments. This judgment resolves a growing ambiguity in public employment law and sets a binding precedent on the interpretation of Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Premakumar A.K., a Library Assistant at Kannur University with a benchmark locomotor disability exceeding 40%, sought promotion to the post of Assistant under the 4% reservation quota for persons with disabilities under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. He argued that his appointment as a low-paid employee entitled him to lateral reservation in promotion, akin to other service categories. His claim was that the 4% reservation under the Disabilities Act should apply independently to promotion, even if the post was filled primarily through direct recruitment and a separate 4% transfer quota.
Procedural History
- 2010: Petitioner appointed as Office Attendant at Kannur University
- 2023: Submitted Ext.P7 representation seeking promotion to Assistant under Section 34
- 2024: Filed W.P.(C) No.8821 of 2024 before the Single Judge of Kerala High Court
- 2025: Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding no promotion route exists for Assistant posts
- 2025: Petitioner filed W.A. No.487 of 2025 challenging the dismissal
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought: (i) mandamus for promotion under the 4% disability quota; (ii) direction to identify and fill all Assistant posts reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities; and (iii) consideration of his representation under the by-transfer scheme.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 entitles a person with a benchmark disability to claim reservation in promotion in addition to reservation in the 4% transfer quota, when the same post is filled through two distinct mechanisms - direct recruitment and transfer from low-paid employees.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on three prior Kerala High Court judgments (W.P.(C) No.7802 of 2016, W.P.(C) No.22488 of 2009, and W.P.(C) No.31201 of 2013) to argue that reservation under the Disabilities Act must be applied to all forms of advancement, including lateral transfers treated as promotions. He contended that the Act mandates inclusive access and that denying him reservation in promotion while granting it in transfer amounted to discriminatory interpretation.
For the Respondent
The State and University countered that the Assistant cadre is filled 96% by direct recruitment and 4% by transfer from low-paid employees based on seniority and qualification. They emphasized that the 4% transfer quota already incorporates reservation for persons with disabilities, and granting an additional layer of reservation under Section 34 would amount to double reservation, which is legally impermissible. They cited the absence of any statutory provision permitting cumulative reservation in the same cadre.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous statutory interpretation of Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which mandates reservation in promotion for persons with benchmark disabilities. However, the Court distinguished between promotion and transfer. It held that promotion implies upward mobility within a hierarchical service structure, whereas transfer under the 4% quota is a lateral appointment mechanism from a different cadre.
"The appellant has no case that the reservation for persons suffering from benchmark disabilities is not provided to the by transfer appointees. His claim is that over and above the said reservation, taking by transfer as a promotion, again reservation as provided under Section 34 of the Disabilities Act has to be given to the by transfer appointees. This claim of the appellant will in effect be a claim for double reservation."
The Court examined the cadre structure: 239 Assistant posts, 230 filled by direct recruitment, 9 by transfer. It found no evidence that the transfer route was structured as a promotion path. The petitioner had not qualified for the transfer quota due to lack of departmental examination. The Court further distinguished the cited precedents, noting that in W.P.(C) No.7802 of 2016, the issue was denial of reservation in promotion where promotion existed; here, no promotion mechanism existed for Assistant posts. The Court concluded that Section 34 does not create a new category of reservation beyond the existing appointment structure.
The Verdict
The writ appeal was dismissed. The Court held that Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 does not permit double reservation - once a person with a benchmark disability is granted reservation under an existing transfer quota, they cannot claim an additional reservation under the same provision for promotion where no promotion mechanism exists. The existing 4% transfer quota already satisfies the statutory obligation.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Double Reservation Is Not Permitted
- Practitioners must now argue that reservation under the RPwD Act applies only once per appointment mechanism
- Claims for cumulative reservation in transfer and promotion within the same cadre will be rejected unless statutory text explicitly permits it
- Public employers may rely on this judgment to reject overlapping reservation claims
Transfer Quotas Are Not Equivalent to Promotions
- The distinction between transfer and promotion is now legally significant
- Employees seeking advancement via transfer must meet the specific eligibility criteria of that quota
- A transfer appointment does not automatically trigger rights under Section 34 as a promotion
Procedural Eligibility Trumps Entitlement
- Even if a person qualifies as a person with benchmark disability, they must still satisfy the conditions for the specific appointment route (e.g., departmental exams)
- Failure to meet procedural requirements under the transfer scheme cannot be cured by invoking Section 34
- Practitioners should advise clients to first qualify under the existing quota before invoking disability-based reservations
