The court held that the DSP authorities were not justified in not giving appointments to the handicapped persons from the panel and that the court could intervene in the case to ensure that the reservation for handicapped persons was not frustrated by any whimsical, farcical or arbitrary action or approach of the DSP authorities.

Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J.: Originally this writ petition was filed by 14 petitioners for direction of appointment under the Durgapur Steel Plant (DSP, for short). Their grievance is that they are all physically handicapped persons and their names were sponsored by the Employment Exchange for consideration of appointment in the Durgapur Steel Plant and they were also interviewed, by the DSP authorities sometime in 1984, but thereafter they were not given any appointment. However, during the continuance of this writ proceeding it transpired from the affidavits exchanged by the parties that out of the 14 writ petitioners only seven were empanelled under various categories while the remaining seven were not at all empanelled for any post. In view of the above noted position the writ petition was ultimately pressed for seven of the writ petitioners only who were empanelled and the case was not at all pressed for the remaining seven writ petitioners out of fourteen. The writ petitioners who were empanelled are writ petitioners nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 11, 12 and 13. Of them, the writ petitioners nos. 11, 12 and 13 were empanelled for the posts of Assistant. Further, annexure-X to the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed on 13th January, 1993 shows that the writ petitioner no. 1 was empanelled at serial no. 1 for the post of Peon, the writ petitioners nos. 2 and 5 were empanelled at serial nos. 3 and 2 respectively for the posts of Mali and the writ petitioner no. 6 was empanelled at serial no. 3 for the post of unskilled worker (USW) for Non-Works Department, vide, the select list prepared on 22nd March, 1985 which is annexure-X to the said affidavit-in-opposition.

2. It is the contention of the respondents DSP authorities that although the names of the said petitioners were empanelled for appointment under different categories in the quota for handicapped persons, yet no appointment could be given to them because of the embargo imposed on the creation of posts at the relevant time and also because the panel expired in due course by efflux of time. The interview of the eligible candidates were held, by the DSP authorities during the period from 18th June, 1984 to 2nd July, 1984 and, as we have seen, panels of successful candidates for various posts were prepared in March, 1985. It is the contention of the respondents in the affidavit-in-opposition that after preliminary selection of the candidates the Chief Personnel Manager of the DSP sent proposal to the Steel Authority of India by his letter dated the 16th September, 1985 to increase the manpower in the plant but the Additional Director (Personnel) of Steel Authority of India by a letter dated the 27th September, 1985 informed the Chief Personnel Manager, DSP the decision of the Board taken in the meeting held in June 1985 that the manpower budget for 1985-86 would be only the men in position at the start of the year, and thereafter by another letter dated the 9th November, 1985 the Steel Authority of India conveyed the decision that the manpower freeze for 1985-86 should continue for 1986-87 also and the manpower budgets for 1985-86 (revised) and 1986-87 (original) should accordingly be worked out. It is also the case of the respondents that in view of the circular dated the 29th/31st October, 1979 as issued by the concerned authority of the DSP, panels drawn in respect of promotion as well as recruitment, remain valid for six months. It is also not in dispute that there are provisions for keeping 3% of posts reserved for physically handicapped persons in group-C and group-D posts in the DSP. We thus find that there are provisions for reservation of 3% posts for handicapped persons. Obviously keeping that in view the DSP authorities in 1984 took interview of physically handicapped candidates sponsored by employment exchange for consideration of empanelment for appointment in various posts under the reserved quota and ultimately in March 1985 prepared select, lists of physically