THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ROBIN PHUKAN, J
Gyamar Tana S/o Lt. Gyamar Tamu - Appellant
Versus
APPSC And 11 Ors - Respondent
WP(C) 55 / 2021
Decided On : 11-03-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Sections 33 and 34 - Petition for inclusion in the list of qualified candidates for Assistant Engineer (Civil) against reserved quota - Petitioner qualified the written examination but was not called for interview due to misapplication of reservation policy - Court found that competition for reserved posts must occur only among candidates with disabilities, not with the general category - Directions issued to APPSC to include petitioner's name and conduct viva-voce. (Paras 2 , 22 , 26 , 30 )
(B) Reservation Policy - The court clarified that the reservation for Persons with Disabilities should be applied from the beginning of the selection process, not just at the final stage. (Paras 21 , 26 )
(C) Legal Framework - The court emphasized the need for adherence to the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the Rules of 2017 to ensure fair competition among candidates with disabilities. (Paras 14 , 20 )
(D) Findings of Court:
The APPSC's procedure was found to be contrary to statutory provisions and failed to uphold the objectives of the Act. (Paras 24 , 25 )
(E) Result: The petition was allowed, and the APPSC was directed to include the petitioner's name in the qualified candidates' list and conduct the viva-voce examination within three months.
JUDGMENT :
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Heard Mr. T. Tagum, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Apang, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. K. Loya, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1; Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4; Mr. R. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 and Mr. G. Taloh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 8.
2. The petitioner, Shri Gyamar Tana, has instituted this proceeding, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the following reliefs:
Background facts:-
3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition, are briefly stated as under:
Rajesh Kumar Daria vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Ors.
Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation vs. Union of India and Anr.
Union of India vs. National Federation of the Blind
J. Jayalalithaa and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.
The reservation for Persons with Disabilities must apply from the start of the selection process, ensuring fair competition among candidates within the reserved category.
Appointment on posts of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate under Civil Judge Cadre – Candidates who consciously took part in process of selection cannot be permitted to question advertisement or met....
The petitioner, having participated in the selection process without protest, cannot challenge the same upon being declared unsuccessful. The reservation for PwD is a horizontal reservation, and cand....
The Court emphasized that physically disabled individuals constitute a unique category entitled to equal treatment without further classification such as caste or religion, mandating adherence to mer....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the reservation for PWD candidates is horizontal and candidates must be appointed against vacancies exclusively earmarked for them.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.