JUDGMENT :

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel, appearing for the appellants (in W.A. No. 191/2021) and respondents No. 2 and 3 (in W.A. No. 216/2021), Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondent No. 1 (in both the appeals), Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant (in W.A. No. 216/2021) and respondent No. 2 (in W.A. No. 191/2021), Mr. Neeraj Choubey, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents No. 7, 10 and 11 (in W.A. No. 191/2021) and respondents No. 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 (in W.A. No. 216/2021) as well as Mr. Rupesh Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents No. 4, 6 and 9 (in W.A. No. 191/2021) and respondents No. 4, 6 and 12 (in W.A. No. 216/2021).

2. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 02.02.2023, Dr. Indu Anant, Registrar, Pt. Sunder Lal Sharma Open University, is also present.

3. W.A. No. 191/2021 is preferred by the appellant-Pt. Sunder Lal Sharma Open University (for short, the University) and W.A. No. 216/2021 is preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner, against an order dated 05.01.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 6693/2014.

4. The appellant in W.A. No. 216/2021, Veena Singh, was the writ petitioner. Besides being a woman, it is an undisputed position that she is physically handicapped with disability to the extent of 80%. She was working from 08.11.2005 as a temporary peon on honorarium basis. Presently, the honorarium is about Rs. 15,000/- per month. The respondent No. 2-University had issued an advertisement dated 23.09.2013 for filling up 9 posts of peon on contingency basis. The salary of the contingency peon is fixed on the basis of the recommendation of the Seventh Pay Commission, which according to the Registrar, is about Rs. 22,000/- per month. It is also admitted by the learned counsel for the parties and endorsed by the Registrar that these 9 posts of contingency peon were approved by the State Government and the recruitment process was started for the first time to fill up the said posts. The writ petitioner belongs to the general category. In the advertisement, it was indicated that 4 posts were meant for the unreserved candidates, 3 posts for the Scheduled Tribes (ST), 1 post for the Scheduled Caste (SC) and 1 post for the Other Backward Class (OBC) category. It was also indicated that the extant rules relating to reservation would be followed. In the selection process, no woman candidate was selected on merit against the 4 posts and as a result, applying the reservation to the extent of 30% of 4 posts, 1 woman candidate was appointed against the 4 posts.

5. The learned Single Judge held that 30% reservation for woman category ought to have been based on the total of 9 posts and not out of 4. Accordingly, it was worked out that 3 posts of women category should have been reserved as against the 9 posts. The learned Single Judge also observed that 6% towards physically challenged category should have been worked out of the total of 9 posts and accordingly, it was also observed that 1 post (on being rounded off) should have been reserved for the physically handicapped category. The petitioner was the only physically handicapped candidate in the aforesaid recruitment process.

6. The learned Single Judge, at paragraphs 12, 13, 14 and 15, observed as follows:

“12. Given the said fact that again one seat for the physically challenged category ought to had been filled up by the Respondents no. 2 and 3 from among the physically challenged candidates who had applied, thus from the aforesaid factual matrix of the case, it is evidently clear that the respondents have clearly violated the reservation policy by carrying out the recruitment process and the petitioner seems to have been deliberately denied her rightful claim for being considered against the said post. The action on the part of the respondents therefore is not acceptable, the recruitment process therefore stand vitia