ORDER :

Ramesh Sinha, J.

Heard Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Shukla and Mr. Himanshu Yadu, Advocates for the petitioner and Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate for the respondent.

1. The present writ appeal has been filed against the order dated 20.10.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.123/2013, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner therein has been allowed and the appellants have been directed to provide reservation in promotions after undertaking the process of identification of post (s) under Section 32 of the Act, 1995 as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Siddaraju and Leesamma Joseph and thereafter consider the case of the respondent/writ petitioner for promotion to the post of Welfare/Personnel in E-1 within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent had filed a writ petition bearing WPS No.123/2013 before the learned Single Bench on the ground that he being the Junior Data Entry Operator (non Executive cadre) working in the SECL, Hasdeo Area, District Korea applied for the promotional post of Welfare/Personnel in E-1 pursuant to the notification dated 08.03.2010 under physically handicapped quota (general), but his candidature for promotion on the said post was not considered against physically handicapped category and the same was rejected, against which he filed writ-petition before the learned Single Judge and the same has been allowed. The appellants strongly opposed the contention of the petitioner in the writ petition on the ground that the existing policy or guideline of the Government of India does not provide for any reservation for physically handicapped person on departmental promotion from non executive cadre to executive cadre, as such the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. It was further contended by the appellants that the notification dated 08.03.2010 was meant for promotion on selection of existing non-executive cadre employees from non executive cadre to executive cadre. It was not a direct recruitment, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be considered for promotion.

3. Learned Single Judge allowed the petition of the respondent and observed in para 20 as under:-

“20. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent SECL is directed to provide reservation in promotions after undertaking the process of identification of post(s) under Section 32 of the Act of 1995 as per the judgments of their Lordships of the Supreme Court noticed herein-above in Rajeev Kumar Gupta (supra), Siddaraju (supra) and Leesamma Joseph’s case (supra), and thereafter to consider the case of the petitioner. The above-stated exercise be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to cost(s).”

4. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order placed his reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Siddaraju and Leesamma Joseph, but these judgments are different on facts as well as law as compared to the present case. The learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 is not applicable in the present case. The promotion was not denied to the petitioner on the ground of his disability alone but rather because he did not secure the minimum specified marks as specified for Internal Departmental Promotion. The learned Single Judge further erred in ignoring the existing rules and orders applicable on the date of advertisement issued in the year 2010. The law operational at the time of issuance of advertisement for promotion in the year 2010 was DOPT memorandum dated 29.12.2005, which d