Disability Law > DLI Impact Cases in Employment

Case Spotlight – Prashant Kumar vs. Ministry of Railways

A win for inclusivity in employment: Disability is not unfitness, says High Court
In a case argued by Disability Law Initiative, a two judge bench of the Delhi High Court has rejected the appeal of the Railways and reaffirmed the view of the single judge of the Court that the disability of Prashant Kumar, a candidate for the Indian Engineering Services, does not render him unfit for engineering jobs.

Read More

Rajeev Kumar Gupta Vs. Union of India

(Supreme Court of India order and judgment dated 30/6/2016 in Writ Petition No. 521/2008)

Supreme Court directs reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities

In a landmark case argued by the Disability Law Initiative, the Supreme Court on 30th June 2016 held as illegal the Government of India instructions disallowing reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities, and said that wherever posts are identified to be suitable for disabled persons, 3% reservation must be given in direct recruitment as well as in promotion. Read more here.

Supreme Court rejects review petition in Rajeev Kumar Gupta

On 15th December 2016, the Supreme Court rejected the attempt of the Government of India to have the 30th June 2016 judgment reviewed. See the order here.


All India Confederation of Blind vs. Union of India (Ministry of Railways)

(Delhi High Court order and judgment dated 7/3/2012 in Writ Petition No. 23132/2005)

Pursuant to a public interest petition argued by the Disability Law Initiative on behalf of All India Confederation of the Blind in the Delhi High Court, the Indian Railways, India’s largest public sector employer, has begun a special recruitment drive to recruit more than 4000 disabled persons in to a variety of posts including posts in the Railway Civil Services. Read more here.


Sambhavana Organization vs. University of Delhi

(Delhi High Court order and judgment dated 14/3/2012 in Writ Petition No. 1801/2008)

The Petitioner, Sambhavana Organization, a non-government organization working for the cause of blind persons, filed this petition through DLI in High Court of Delhi complaining that the Delhi University was not fulfilling the mandate of 3% reservation for persons with disabilities in the recruitment of the non-teaching staff. In the course of the proceedings in this matter, the Delhi University agreed to fill the backlog in the vacancies in non-teaching posts for persons with disabilities. Pursuant to court orders, Delhi University has recruited disabled persons into 11 non-teaching posts including the managerial / executive “Group A” posts of Assistant Registrar for the orthopaedically impaired, Assistant Director for the visually impaired and Assistant Librarian for the hearing impaired.


All India Confederation Of The Blind Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board And Others

(Delhi High Court order and judgment dated 7/9/2012 in Writ Petition No. 3411/2012)

DLI represented the AICB in this case and submitted to the Court that the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board had illegally sought to exclude disabled persons from several jobs advertised by them, even though these jobs had been identified to be suitable for persons with disabilities by an Expert Committee of the Government of India. Agreeing with DLI, the Court cancelled the advertisement of DSSSB and directed them to issue a fresh advertisement including persons with disabilities as eligible candidates for the advertised posts.


Munnu Lal Mishra vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and Union Public Service Commission

(Central Administrative Tribunal order and judgment dated 24.12.2010 in Case No. OA 2310 and 2314/2010)

The Disability Law Initiative represented the Petitioner Mr. Munnu Lal Mishra before the Central Administrative Tribunal in Delhi and submitted that the Delhi Government had advertised 58 vacancies in posts of Principal and 20 vacancies in post of Education Officer but had not made the lawfully required reservation for persons with disabilities in these posts. DLI submitted that the Delhi Government was required to maintain a disability reservation roster which they had not done. Finding merit in DLI’s position, the Tribunal directed the Delhi Government to put in place such a roster and then issue a correction to their advertisement correctly incorporating the 3% reservation for persons with disabilities.