Point of Law : As per Section 32 of the Act of 1995, the appropriate Government, which in this case is the State Government of Assam, is required to inter-alia identify posts in every establishment that can be reserved for persons with disability. Section 33 of the Act of 1995 provides that those posts are required to be reserved for recruitment of persons with disability coming under three different categories.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. J. Kalita, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. K. Konwar, learned standing counsel, APSC representing the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2. Aggrieved by non-inclusion of the petitioner’s name in the select list prepared for appointment in the post of Veterinary Officer/ Block Veterinary Officer, the instant writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint him against the quota reserved for the Person With Disabilities (PWD) category candidates.

3. The facts of the case, giving rise to filing this writ petition, briefly stated, are as follows. The Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) had issued an advertisement notice dated 17-02-2018 inviting applications for filling up number of posts in different departments under the Government of Assam including 113 posts of Veterinary Officer/ Block Veterinary Officer in Class- II, Gazetted (Jr. Grade) under the Assam Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Department. In the advertisement notice 17-02-2018 it has been mentioned that 4 (four) posts of Veterinary Officer/ Block Veterinary Officer have been kept reserved for PWD candidates with Locomotor, Low vision and Hearing handicapped category. The writ petitioner herein is a general category candidate but he is suffering from hearing impairment to the extent of more than 60%. As such, he had submitted his candidatures as PWD candidate belonging to the General Category. Upon completion of the selection process the APSC had published select list dated 03-10-2018 containing the names of as many as 110 candidates belonging to various categories for filling up the advertised posts of Veterinary Officer/ Block Veterinary Officer. The said select list, however, had mentioned that there were no candidates belonging to low vision and hearing handicapped in the PWD category and hence, no recommendation could be made for the said categories.

4. Aggrieved by non-inclusion of his name in the aforesaid select list as a PWD category candidate, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 7275/2018 inter-alia contending that the respondents have arbitrarily refused to consider his case for appointment as a candidate belonging to PWD category. Taking note of the grievance of the writ petitioner, the learned Single Judge had disposed of the aforesaid writ petition by order dated 31-10-2018 passed in W.P.(C) No. 7275/2018 by directing the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to assign reasons as to why the petitioner was not recommended for appointment, within 04 weeks from the date of the order. In terms of the directions contained in the order dated 31- 10-2018, the respondent No. 3 has issued the order dated 30-11-2018 disposing of the claim of the petitioner. In the order dated 30-11-2018, it has been mentioned that there was only one PWD candidate belonging to locomotor category and OBC(F) and she was recommended at Sl. No. 103. However, since there was no other candidate belonging to low vision and hearing handicapped category coming under the OBC/ MOBC and ST(H) category, hence, no recommendation could be made in respect of the other three reserved posts of PWD category. Insofar as the grievance of the petitioner is concerned the same was specifically dealt with in paragraph 3 of the order dated 30-11-2018, which is reproduced here-in-below for ready reference:

“3. Furthermore, Mr. Saidur Rahman belongs to a general category candidate with hearing handicapped, bearing Sl. No. 00158 is not entitled to PWD reservation as per advertisement No. 01/2018 as all 4 (four) posts earmarked for PWD category candidates were reserved as 3 (three) posts for OBC/ MOBC candidates and 1 (one) post for STH candidate. Furthermore, it is also noteworthy to mention that the petitioner being a general category male candidate was not e