State of Kerala v. Leesamma Joseph
“Disability Rights: Reservation in Promotions is a Right, Not a Favor”
TL;DR
The Supreme Court held that persons with disabilities (PwD) have a right to reservation in promotions, not just in initial recruitment. The mode of entry into service (whether through PwD quota or compassionate appointment) does not affect this right. States must identify posts and implement reservation in promotions for PwD within 3 months.
The Bottom Line
If you are a person with disability working in government, you have the right to reservation in promotions—not just initial hiring. How you got the job (disability quota or compassionate grounds) doesn't matter. The State must implement this right.
Case Timeline
The journey from FIR to Supreme Court verdict
Compassionate Appointment
Leesamma Joseph appointed as Typist/Clerk on compassionate grounds after brother's death in service
Compassionate Appointment
Leesamma Joseph appointed as Typist/Clerk on compassionate grounds after brother's death in service
RPwD Act Enacted
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 came into force, replacing the 1995 Act
RPwD Act Enacted
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 came into force, replacing the 1995 Act
High Court Judgment
Kerala High Court ruled in favor of Leesamma, granting right to reservation in promotions
High Court Judgment
Kerala High Court ruled in favor of Leesamma, granting right to reservation in promotions
Supreme Court Appeal
State of Kerala appealed to Supreme Court against High Court judgment
Supreme Court Appeal
State of Kerala appealed to Supreme Court against High Court judgment
Supreme Court Judgment
Supreme Court upheld High Court, affirmed PwD right to reservation in promotions
Supreme Court Judgment
Supreme Court upheld High Court, affirmed PwD right to reservation in promotions
The Story
Leesamma Joseph was appointed as a Typist/Clerk in the Kerala Police Department in 1996 on compassionate grounds after her brother passed away while in service. She suffered from a permanent disability of 55% on account of Polio.
Despite being a person with disability, Leesamma was not given the benefit of reservation in promotions. The State of Kerala argued that since she was appointed on compassionate grounds and not through the disability quota, she was not entitled to reservation in promotions for PwD.
The State further contended that the Persons with Disabilities Act of 1995 only provides for reservation during initial appointment (direct recruitment) and does not mandate reservation in promotions. They argued that Kerala had never made any rules or policies for reservation in promotions for disabled persons.
Leesamma challenged this before the Kerala High Court, which ruled in her favor. The High Court held that once appointed, a person with disability is entitled to all benefits available to the PwD cadre, regardless of the mode of entry.
The State of Kerala appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court's judgment.
Legal Issues
Click each question to reveal the Supreme Court's answer
Arguments
The battle of arguments before the Supreme Court
Petitioner
Vihaan Kumar
PwD Act only covers direct recruitment
Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 (and Section 34 of the RPwD Act, 2016) only provides for reservation in vacancies, which means initial appointment, not promotions.
Mode of entry matters
Since Leesamma was appointed on compassionate grounds and not through PwD quota, she should not be entitled to benefits reserved for those who entered through the disability reservation.
No rules framed
Kerala never made any rules or policies for reservation in promotions for PwD. Therefore, such reservation cannot be claimed as a right.
Respondent
State of Haryana
Equal treatment after appointment
Once appointed, all persons with disabilities should be treated equally regardless of how they entered service. Discrimination based on mode of entry is arbitrary.
Article 16(4) covers PwD
Article 16(4) empowers the State to make reservation in promotions for backward classes. Persons with disabilities are included within this framework.
Constitutional mandate
Article 41 of the Constitution specifically mandates effective provisions for persons with disabilities. This includes opportunities for advancement in employment.
Court's Analysis
How the Court reasoned its decision
The Supreme Court undertook a comprehensive examination of the constitutional framework for disability rights, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the principles of equality. The Court emphasized that reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities includes reservations in promotions.
Persons with Disabilities have the right to reservation in promotions through an expansive reading of Article 16 of the Constitution with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Harmonizes constitutional provisions with statutory rights for PwD.
Once the respondent has been appointed, she is to be identically placed as others in the PwD cadre. To accept the entry point as determinative of entitlement would be discriminatory and violative of the mandate of the Constitution.
Rejects discrimination based on mode of entry into service.
A person who came in through normal recruitment but suffers disability after joining service would on a pari materia position also not be entitled to promotional post reserved for PwD, if the entry point was treated as determinative.
Shows the logical absurdity of the State's argument.
The State cannot use its own failure to frame rules as an excuse to deny constitutional and statutory rights.
States must proactively implement disability rights.
The Verdict
Relief Granted
Leesamma Joseph's right to reservation in promotions was upheld. The State of Kerala was directed to implement reservation in promotions for all persons with disabilities within a time-bound manner.
Directions Issued
- Persons with disabilities have the right to reservation in promotions under Article 16(4) read with RPwD Act, 2016
- Mode of entry into service does not affect entitlement to promotional reservation
- State of Kerala directed to identify all posts for PwD reservation within 3 months
- Reservation in promotions must be implemented in all identified posts
- Computation of reservation to be made with reference to total vacancies in cadre strength
Key Legal Principles Established
Persons with disabilities have the right to reservation in promotions, not just initial recruitment.
Mode of entry into service (disability quota, compassionate grounds, or regular recruitment) does not affect entitlement to PwD benefits.
Article 16(4) covers persons with disabilities and enables reservation in promotions.
"Reasonable accommodation" under the RPwD Act includes reservation in promotions.
States cannot use failure to frame rules as an excuse to deny statutory rights.
Reservation computation must be based on total vacancies in cadre strength, not distinguished by recruitment method.
Persons who acquire disability after joining service are equally entitled to PwD benefits.
Key Takeaways
What different people should know from this case
- If you are a person with disability in government service, you have the right to reservation in promotions.
- It doesn't matter how you got your job—through disability quota, compassionate appointment, or regular recruitment.
- If you acquire disability after joining service, you become entitled to PwD benefits.
- The government cannot deny you benefits by saying they haven't made rules—they are required to make rules.
- This applies to all government jobs, not just Central government.
Legal Framework
Applicable laws and provisions
Constitutional Provisions
Article 16(4)
Constitution of India
“Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State.”
Relevance: Enables reservation in promotions for backward classes, which includes persons with disabilities.
Article 41
Constitution of India
“The State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement.”
Relevance: Constitutional directive to provide for persons with disabilities.
Article 14
Constitution of India
“The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”
Relevance: Discrimination based on mode of entry violates equality guarantee.
Statutory Provisions
Section 34
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
“Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every Government establishment, not less than four per cent of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength in each group of posts meant to be filled with persons with benchmark disabilities.”
Relevance: Mandates 4% reservation for PwD in government jobs.
Section 32
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
“Every appropriate Government shall identify posts in the establishments which can be held by respective category of persons with benchmark disabilities.”
Relevance: Requires identification of posts for PwD reservation—State's failure to do this is no excuse.
Section 33
Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995
“Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less than three per cent for persons or class of persons with disability.”
Relevance: Earlier Act that provided 3% reservation—now replaced by RPwD Act with 4%.
Related Cases & Precedents
Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind
cited(2013) 10 SCC 772
Held that reservation for PwD should be computed based on total vacancies, not vacancy-by-vacancy.
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
cited(1992) Supp 3 SCC 217
Nine-Judge Bench case on reservation, discussed the scope of Article 16(4) and backward classes.
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India
cited(2006) 8 SCC 212
Upheld reservation in promotions for SC/ST, principles applicable to PwD reservation.
Javed v. State of Haryana
distinguished(2003) 8 SCC 369
Upheld two-child norm for panchayat elections—distinguished in context of disability rights.
Watch & Learn
Video explanations in multiple languages
Frequently Asked Questions
Explore Related Cases
More case summaries on similar legal topics
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana
2025 INSC 162
The Case That Made Silence During Arrest Unconstitutional
Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala
2024 INSC 625
When Criticism of a Public Figure Doesn't Become a Caste Atrocity
Omkar Gond v. Union of India
2024 INSC 775
Disability Percentage Cannot Automatically Deny Your Dream of Becoming a Doctor
Just Rights for Children v. S. Harish
2024 INSC 714
Watching Child Pornography is NOT Just "Moral Decay" — It's a Serious Crime
DISCLAIMER: This case summary is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, please consult a qualified advocate. JurisOptima is not responsible for any actions taken based on this information.
Facing aSimilar Situation?
Our advocates can help you understand how this judgment applies to your case.