JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. J. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Jamoh, learned standing counsel for the Education Department, representing respondent nos.1 and 2, Mr. A. Apang, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. N. Anju, learned standing counsel for the respondent no.3.

2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed (i) for setting aside the result notification dated 01.08.2019 in respect of Post of Assistant Professor (Hindi), claiming that the said post is reserved for Persons with Disability (Orthopedically); and (ii) for a direction upon the respondent no.3 to select the petitioner for appointment in the said post.

3. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that on 31.05.2018, an employment advertisement was issued by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “APPSC” for short) (i.e. respondent no.3) for filling up 62 (sixty two) posts of Assistant Professor for the Govt. Colleges of Arunachal Pradesh. As per the said advertisement, out of the said 62 posts, 10 (ten) posts were for Assistant Professor (Hindi). Out of the said 10 posts, 1 (one) post was reserved for Persons with Disability (Orthopedically) [hereinafter referred to as PwD(O)]. The petitioner has projected that he is a PwD(O) candidate and possesses the requisite qualification in terms of the said advertisement. Accordingly, the petitioner had offered his candidature for selection and appointment for the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi). The petitioner had appeared for an interview on 01.08.2019 and the results were declared by the respondent no.3 on 01.08.2019 itself. The grievance of the petitioner is that in an illegal and arbitrary manner, the result notification was published and the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi) was carried forward to the next recruitment on the ground that there was no candidate under PwD(O) category. It is projected that the candidature of the petitioner, who had secured 55.25 marks in the interview was ignored as he was not an Arunachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribe (APST) candidate. Accordingly, the petitioner claims that the rejection of his candidature of despite being PwD(O), was in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had participated in the selection process for 1 (one) post of Assistant Professor (Hindi), which was reserved for PwD(O) category and that as he had secured 55.25 marks, the rejection of his candidature was in total violation of the provisions of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “2016 Act”). It is also submitted that PwD is a class apart and must be treated as a horizontal reservation and therefore, there cannot be further reservation exclusively for the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or General Category (i.e. unreserved class). It was also submitted that the advertisement dated 31.05.2018 did not mention about the reservation of post of Assistant Professor (Hindi) for APST and therefore, by applying APST reservation for posts earmarked for PwD(O), the rules of the game was changed after initiation of the recruitment process. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the following cases, viz., (1) Tamil Nadu Computer Science B.Ed Graduate Teachers Welfare Society (1) Vs. Higher Secondary School Computer Teachers Association & Ors., (2009) 14 SCC 517; (2) K. Manjusree Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., (2008) 3 SCC 512; (3) Mahesh Gupta & Ors. Vs. Yashwant Kumar Ahirwar & Ors., (2007) 8 SCC 621; (4) Hemani Malhotra Vs. High Court of Delhi, (2008) 7 SCC 11; (5) Saidur Rahman Vs. the State of Assam & Ors., WP(C) 758/2019, decided on 14.02.2022.

5. The learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 ha