Special categories quota can be exceeded: SC

New Delhi, Sep 2: The Supreme Court has held that, to provide reservations for special categories candidates such as women, disabled and blind, etc, the upper limit of reservations fixed at 50 per cent by it in 1992 in Mandal Commission case, can be exceeded.

A bench comprising Justices S B Sinha and Harjit Singh Bedi ruled that the special category reservations cannot be based on caste, creed or religion as a disabled is a disabled and the total reservations can be exceeded .

The apex court, while severly reprimanding Madhya Pradesh government in its judgement, noted it is travesty of justice that despite the state clarifying its own position in its order dated January 1, 2004 and stating the posts vacant under the handicapped quota it completely turned turtle and took a opposite stand when a contempt petition was filed.

In its reply in proceedings reference was made to aforementioned order on the same date but within a short time, February 4, 2004, it opined that as a word ''handicapped was not mentioned in the heading of the advertisement they were meant only for SC and ST candidates.

Rule of executive construction was given a complete go bye.

Reasonableness and fairness which is the hallmark of Article 14 of the Constitution was completely lost sight of. The officers of the state behaved strangely. It prevaricated its stand only because a contempt proceeding was initiated. It chose to terminate the services of some of the employees who had already been appointed.

Such a course could not have been taken either in law or in equity,'' the court held.

The court further stated ''the state is expected to have a constitutional vision. It must give effect to the constitutional mendate. Whereas a reasonable reservation within the meaning of Article 16 of the Constitution should not ordinarily exceeded, 50 per cent has been held by this court in Indra Sawhney case, reservations for women or handicapped persons would not come within the purview thereof." The Supreme Court also imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 each on the state government in accordance with the numbers of appellants including Mahesh Gupta and others.

It also directed the government that the appellants shall be continued in the services with back wages along with other service benefits. Respondent -- Yashwant Kumar, Ahirwar and others -- shall be considered for the appointment if the vacancies are still there and the state may also consider the desireability of creating a supernumerary post and continuing the services of Ahirwar therein.

The Supreme Court set aside the order of Madhya Pradesh High Court order dated May 1, 2003 and August 23, 2004.

The state had earlier taken a stand that the reservations for handicapped persons were available to candidates from all categories but when contempt proceedings were initiated against state government it reversed its stand and decided to cancel the appointments as result of the services of the appellants were terminated.

The apex court concluded by observing that "disability has won the attention of worldwide community. India is a signatory to various international treaties and conventions. The state, therefore, took a decision to have horizontal reservation with a view to fulfil its constitutional object as also its commitment to the international community.'' UNI