Satish Damodar Bagwe vs The Union Of India Thr. Gp And Ors

CNR No : HCBM010478792022

904-WP-14760-2022.odt
rajshree
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.14760 OF 2022
Satish Damodar Bagwe ....Petitioner
V/S
Union of India & Ors. ....Respondents
Mr.A.M. Saraogi a/w Mr.Vaibhav Ugle and Mr.Mohan Waghmare
for the Petitioner.
Mr.Neel Helekar a/w P. Khosla for Respondent No.1.
Mr.Abhijeet Joshi for Respondent Nos. 3 to 5.
CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE &
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ
th
DATE : 28 OCTOBER 2026

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER BHARATI DANGRE, J) :
1 Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, by consent.
2 On 15/10/2026 our attention was invited to the decision of
1
the Apex Court in Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka & Ors. , which
in turn placed reliance upon the earlier decisions in case of
National Federation of the Blind vs. Sanjay Kothari, Secy. Deptt.
2
Of Personnel and Training and the decision in Rajiv Kumar
3
Gupta & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. .
1 Civil Appeal No.1567/2017
2 (2020) 19 SCC 584
3 (2016) 13 SCC 153
Digitally signed
by RAJSHREE
KISHOR MORE
Date:
2026.10.29
10:13:30 +0530
RAJSHREE
KISHOR
MORE
1/5
Uploaded on - 29/10/2026 Downloaded on - 29/10/2026 15:31:12

904-WP-14760-2022.odt
The decision in case of Siddaraju (supra) was carefully
perused by us in the backdrop of the provisions of the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and in particular Section 32
and 33 which are included in Chapter VI of the Act dealing with
identification and reservation of post for the purpose of
employment.
Undisputedly, the said Judgment categorically rule that
this reservation is applicable for recruitment and also for
promotion, but what was contemplated is the identification of the
post/(s), to which the reservation can be applied and promotion
can be effected.
3 The learned counsel Mr. Helekar, representing Union of
India would submit that the Office Memorandum which is
thereafter issued, is in consonance with the directions issued by
the Hon’ble Apex Court and he would submit that at a subsequent
point of time when a clarification was sought from the Hon’ble
Apex Court, as regards whether the intention of the Judgment
was to grant reservation and promotion beyond lowest rung
Group A or upto the lowest rung of Group A and as to whether
vacancies for promotion for PWD should be computed only on the
basis of vacancies against the identified posts or against the
vacancies in both identified and non identified posts, the three
Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Siddaraju vs. State of
4
Karnataka & Ors. with reference to Section 34 of the Act,
clarified that there was no ambiguity in the Judgment and rather
Union of India was directed to issue instructions regarding
4 (2020)19 SCC 572
2/5
Uploaded on - 29/10/2026 Downloaded on - 29/10/2026 15:31:12

904-WP-14760-2022.odt
reservation in promotion as provided in Section 34 of the Act of
2016, within a period of four months.
4 As far as the facts of the present case are concerned,
Mr.Saraogi representing the Petitioner would submit that when
the Petitioner approached this Court in the year 2022, he was in
service and he specifically prayed for consideration of his claim
for promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager, TEGS-VI
and General Manager-TEGS-II by considering his seniority and
granting him back dated promotion. However, during the
pendency of the Petition, we are informed that the Petitioner is
superannuated on 31/03/2024.
5 Mr.Saraogi has also invited our attention to the order dated
01/08/2023 when a statement was made on behalf of the Bank i.e.
the employer of the Petitioner, that they are in the process of
identification of posts in Group-B and lowest rung of Group-A and,
therefore, a direction was issued to Respondent Nos.3 to 5 to
place on record within how much time the process of
identification of posts will be completed.
Admittedly, this process is not yet complete, as Mr.Joshi
representing the Bank made a statement that the posts in specific
where the PWD category persons can be accommodated are not
yet identified. In such circumstances, it is necessary to direct the
Bank to carry out the said process, as the three Judge Bench in
Siddaraju (II) had also directed the Union of India to issue
instruction regarding reservation and promotion within a period
of four months and the Judgment clearly contemplated
3/5
Uploaded on - 29/10/2026 Downloaded on - 29/10/2026 15:31:12

904-WP-14760-2022.odt
compliance of Section 34 i.e. identification of a post for
implementing the reservation as provided in Section 33 of the
Act of 2016.
6 In these circumstances, in light of the submissions
advanced by Mr.Helekar on behalf of Union of India, since there is
no cavil about the fact that the posts are to be identified by the
respective employer, so that the reservation can be made
applicable, the ball now lie in the Court of the Bank as it will have
to identify the post upon identification and then claim of the
Petitioner shall be considered based upon his seniority and
eligibility for being considered to be promoted on the said post, by
considering him to be entitled for the benefit of Section 33 of the
Act of 2016 and in accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Siddaraju vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. (I) .
Even Mr.Joshi representing the Bank do not dispute the
legal position flowing from the decisions and since now it is
imperative for the Bank to identify the post on which the
reservation can be provided as contemplated under Section 33,
and despite the Bank having been directed to do so in the year
2023 itself, for past 3 years it is unfortunate that the Bank has
not taken any positive steps in this regard.
7 Hence, we deem it appropriate to direct the Bank to
identify the posts which are available for reservation at the time
when the Petitioner claims his eligibility and upon such post
being identified, the case of the Petitioner shall be taken up for
consideration, keeping in mind that though he has superannuated
4/5
Uploaded on - 29/10/2026 Downloaded on - 29/10/2026 15:31:12

904-WP-14760-2022.odt
on 31/03/2024, if the post was available on the date when he was
in service and it could be reserved for a PWD candidate, then the
suitability of the Petitioner shall be determined as on that date,
and for effecting such promotion though the Petitioner has
already superannuated, he shall be conferred the deemed date of
promotion.
We direct the exercise of identification of the post to be
completed within a period of two months and consideration of the
claim of the Petitioner pursuant thereto, within a period of two
months thereafter.
We make it clear that we have not pronounced upon the
eligibility of the Petitioner, but we have only directed the Bank to
consider the claim of the Petitioner for promotion on the post
which would be identified by it and declared as reserved for the
PWD category.
Once this exercise being done, on the basis of the rules that
are applicable for promoting PWD category persons as per the
recruitment rules of the Bank, the case of the Petitioner shall be
taken up for consideration.
In case, if the grievance of the Petitioner is not redressed,
we grant liberty to the Petitioner to file appropriate proceedings,
as are available to him in law.
Rule is made absolute in above terms.
No order as to cost.
[ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.] [BHARATI DANGRE, J.]
5/5
Uploaded on - 29/10/2026 Downloaded on - 29/10/2026 15:31:12
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)