THE APPOINTMENT OF CANDIDATES AGAINST THE POSTS RESERVED FOR PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED PERSONS SHOULD BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MERIT LIST OF THE OPEN CATEGORY, FOLLOWED BY THE LIST FOR PROVIDING SOCIAL RESERVATION TO SC, ST, SBC, AND OBC CATEGORY.

M.N. Bhandari, J.

These writ petitions involve common question of law thus were heard together and are decided by this order.

2. The University of Rajasthan invited applications for selection on the post of Professors, Associate Professors and Assistant Professors in different faculties vide advertisement dated 1st December, 2012. In all, 294 posts were advertised, out of which, eight posts were reserved for physically handicapped persons. The controversy in these writ petitions pertains to the reservation for physically handicapped candidates.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that out of eight posts reserved for physically handicapped persons, four posts were reserved for visually handicapped candidates and four posts for locomotors disabled candidates. It is in view of the fact that no post was identified for hearing impaired candidates. All the petitioners applied for the post in different subjects and being eligible candidates, should have been given appointment against the post reserved for physically handicapped persons. Out of many petitioners, few belong to reserve category also. After selection, the petitioners were expecting their appointment but when nothing was heard from the respondents, they submitted various representations and in the case of petitioner-Balraj Vishnoi, he approached the Commissioner (Disabilities) where his complaint was dismissed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner-Priti Singh in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10494/2015 urged that she was interviewed treating her to be OBC candidate and not in the category of physically handicapped person. The right of the petitioner for consideration of her candidature against the post reserved for physically handicapped person has been infringed. When the petitioner was not selected despite her eligibility and entitlement for consideration of her candidature against the post meant for physically handicapped candidate, she made a representation to the respondents but when nothing was heard, the petitioner preferred this writ petition. The petitioner is aggrieved for violation of Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (in short "the Act of 1995") and rules made thereunder by the State of Rajasthan.

5. Learned counsel submitted that in the case of Vinita Nair v. Registrar, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.269/2014, similar issue was raised and decided by this court vide judgment dated 13th August, 2014. The only difference is that Vinita Nair was not short-listed and accordingly not called for interview thus she preferred writ petition at the initial stage itself. By interim order, the court permitted her to appear in the interview. The writ petition was thereupon decided in favour of Vinita Nair and special appeal by the University of Rajasthan was dismissed.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent-University has allowed shifting of the post reserved for physically handicapped persons for various subjects. It is in the light of Condition No.16 of the advertisement. In view of above, two posts lying vacant in the subjects of Botany and Public Administration should have been shifted to the post of Philosophy for giving appointment to the petitioner-Priti Singh. It is moreso when on 17th October, 2015, the Syndicate decided to shift one post of physically handicapped person from Drawing and Painting subject to ABST. In the light of the facts given above and judgment in the case of Vinita Nair (supra), the petitioner is entitled for the same benefit.

7. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11768/2014, Archana Tiwari v. Registrar, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the same facts as have been given in the writ petition of Priti Singh. The only difference between two petitions is that Priti Singh belongs to reserve category, whereas Archana Tiwari is of general caste and she applied for