Court: High Court of Kerala (followed by dismissal of State's SLP by the Supreme Court of India)
Bench: Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice C. Jayachandran
Case No.: O.P. (KAT) No. 312 of 2023
Case Title: Dr. B. Unnikrishnan v. State of Kerala & Others
Date of Judgment: 9 August 2023
Supreme Court Proceedings: State of Kerala & Anr. v. Dr. B. Unnikrishnan, SLP (Civil) Diary No. 7352 of 2024, dismissed on 23 February 2024.
Cases Referred:
- State of Kerala v. Leesamma Joseph (2021) 9 SCC 208
- Rajeev Kumar Gupta v. Union of India (2016) 13 SCC 153
- Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka (2020) 19 SCC 572
- Reserve Bank of India v. A.K. Nair (2023 SCC OnLine SC 801)
- Government of India v. Ravi Prakash Gupta (2010) 7 SCC 626
Summary:
The struggle of Dr. B. Unnikrishnan, a senior government doctor with benchmark disability in Kerala, is a stark reminder that having a right on paper does not necessarily translate into its enjoyment in practice. Despite clear statutory protections under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) and binding Supreme Court precedents recognizing reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities, Dr. Unnikrishnan was forced to spend nearly eight years in litigation before obtaining the promotion to which he was legally entitled.
Background
Dr. B. Unnikrishnan, a doctor with 40% locomotor disability, was serving in the Health Services Department of Kerala. His claim related to promotion to the post of Deputy Director of Health Services under the reservation in promotion provisions applicable to persons with benchmark disabilities.
The Kerala Government had issued Government Order G.O.(P) No. 5/2022/SJD dated 15 July 2022 to provide reservation in promotion to persons with disabilities in compliance with Supreme Court judgments. However, while considering Dr. Unnikrishnan's claim, the Government adopted a restrictive interpretation of the order and rejected his request.
The State argued that reservation in promotion would be available only where the higher post could be filled both by direct recruitment and by promotion. Since the post of Deputy Director of Health Services was filled exclusively through promotion, the Government contended that reservation in promotion was unavailable.
When Dr. Unnikrishnan challenged the decision before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT), the Tribunal accepted the Government's interpretation and dismissed his Original Application.
Kerala High Court Sets Aside the Tribunal's Order
The High Court found the Tribunal's reasoning fundamentally flawed.
The Court noted that the issue was no longer res integra. The Supreme Court in Leesamma Joseph had already held that Kerala was required to implement reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities and had directed the State to ensure compliance with the law.
The High Court relied extensively upon Leesamma Joseph as well as the Supreme Court's subsequent decision in Reserve Bank of India v. A.K. Nair, where the Court reaffirmed that reservation for persons with disabilities extends to promotional posts and that the term "appointment" includes promotion.
Rejecting the State's interpretation, the High Court observed that the Government Order could not be read to mean that reservation in promotion would be denied where a post is filled solely by promotion. Such an interpretation, the Court held, would be hyper-technical, unreasonable and contrary to the jurisprudence developed by the Supreme Court.
The Court made an important observation: where a post is filled exclusively through promotion, there can be no justification for denying reservation in promotion merely because direct recruitment is not one of the methods of appointment.
Accordingly, the High Court:
- Set aside the Kerala Administrative Tribunal's order;
- Quashed the Government order rejecting Dr. Unnikrishnan's claim;
- Directed reconsideration of his case for promotion in accordance with the law;
- Directed the authorities to complete the exercise within a time-bound period.
State Carries the Matter to the Supreme Court
Instead of implementing the judgment, the State of Kerala challenged the High Court's decision before the Supreme Court.
On 23 February 2024, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's judgment and dismissed the State's Special Leave Petition.
The order was brief but significant. The Supreme Court stated:
"We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed."
Although the Court kept the broader question of law open, the High Court's relief in favour of Dr. Unnikrishnan remained intact.
Even After Losing in the Supreme Court, the State Delayed Compliance
One would have expected the matter to end after the Supreme Court's dismissal of the State's challenge. Unfortunately, that was not the case.
Despite losing before both the High Court and the Supreme Court, the Government failed to grant the promotion. Dr. Unnikrishnan was compelled to initiate contempt proceedings to secure compliance with the judicial orders.
Only when faced with contempt proceedings did the State finally issue orders on 19 May 2026 promoting him as Additional Director of Health Services with retrospective effect from October 2017.
The promotion came almost nine years after it became due and more than two years after the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the High Court judgment.
A Victory Beyond One Individual
The significance of this case extends beyond Dr. Unnikrishnan's individual grievance.
The litigation highlights a recurring pattern witnessed across the country. Despite authoritative pronouncements in Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Siddaraju, Leesamma Joseph and A.K. Nair, public authorities continue to deny reservation in promotion to employees with disabilities, compelling them to engage in prolonged litigation merely to secure rights already recognized by law.
The facts of this case also demonstrate the human cost of such resistance. During the years spent litigating, Dr. Unnikrishnan continued serving the public health system in lower-level positions while his contemporaries moved ahead in the promotional hierarchy. Had the law been implemented when due, he may have been considered for even higher positions.
The Problematic Caveat
Reports indicate that while granting the promotion, the Government inserted a condition stating that the order would not operate as a precedent.
Such a caveat is deeply problematic. Rights under the RPwD Act do not depend upon individual benevolence or case-specific exceptions. Reservation in promotion is a statutory entitlement recognized by the Supreme Court. The benefit cannot be confined to one employee who succeeded after years of litigation while similarly situated employees are forced to commence fresh legal battles.
The obligation of the State is to implement the law uniformly and proactively, not merely to comply with court orders in isolated cases.
Conclusion
Dr. B. Unnikrishnan's victory is both inspiring and troubling.
It is inspiring because it demonstrates the perseverance of a disabled professional who refused to surrender his legal rights despite years of resistance. It is troubling because a right recognized repeatedly by the Supreme Court still required nearly a decade of litigation, a High Court judgment, a Supreme Court dismissal, and contempt proceedings before the State finally complied.
The case stands as an important reminder that the true measure of disability rights is not found in statutes or judgments alone, but in their timely implementation. Reservation in promotion is not a concession. It is a legal entitlement flowing from the constitutional promise of equality and the statutory mandate of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Until governments internalize that principle, many more employees with disabilities may find themselves fighting the same battle that Dr. Unnikrishnan was forced to wage for nearly a decade.
Read the Kerala Hight Court Judgement (PDF embedded)
No comments:
Post a Comment