IMPORTANT POINT
Denial of benefit of reservation based on the applicant's residence in another State is unconstitutional and illegal, as it goes against the statutory requirements and the constitutional mandate against discrimination based on place of residence.

ORDER :

1. Heard.

2. This appeal arises out of the order dated 9th January, 2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in the matter of dispute relating to entitlement of the respondent-writ petitioner to avail the benefit of reservation for especiallyabled person under the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short ‘the Act of 2016’) and the Rajasthan Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2018 (for short ‘the Rules of 2018’).

3. The relevant facts, unfolded from the record of the case and the order of the learned Single Judge and not in dispute, are that the respondent petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Mathematics), which was kept reserved for especiallyabled person in Hearing Impaired (HI) category, in response to the advertisement dated 18.12.2020. The writ petitioner successfully passed the examination and was kept in the merit list prepared by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, which recommended the petitioner’s name for appointment against the single post reserved for speciallyabled HI category. The State, however, did not accept the recommendation and refused to grant appointment to the petitioner, which led to filing of the writ petition before this Court.

4. As against the claim of the writ petitioner that he being the only successful and meritorious candidate for appointment against one reserved vacancy for speciallyabled HI category, the stand of the State was that if the benefit of reservation under the Rules of 2018 is accorded to the writ petitioner, it will be against the interest of the persons with disabilities in the State of Rajasthan. It was also argued that the reservation of PH category being vertical reservation, the principles applicable in caste based reservation will equally apply to the PH category reservation.

5. The learned Single Judge while negating the submission of the State, accepted the contentions of learned counsel for the writ petitioner and upon consideration of the scheme of examination, as contained in the advertisement and the provisions with regard to reservation as contained in the Rules of 2018, proceeded to hold that in the absence of there being any bar under the rules or under any other provisions of any law for the time being in force much less under the constitutional scheme, denial of appointment against reserved category only on the ground that the writ petitioner, though a person belonging to reserved category, hails from another State, is constitutionally impermissible. The finding led to issuance of mandamus to the State to provide appointment to the petitioner with all notional benefits.

6. The present appeal has been filed by the State against the aforesaid order.

7. The learned Additional Advocate General would only repeat the submissions which have already been advanced before the learned Single Judge on behalf of the State by submitting that the basis for rejection of petitioner’s claim for appointment against reserved category post is that even though he may be a person belonging to speciallyabled HI category, he is a person hailing from another State and as he is not a domicile of the State of Rajasthan, denial has taken place.

8. The learned Additional Advocate General also submits that in view of the provisions of Section 57 of the Act of 2016, in relation to respondent writ petition or, the appropriate Government would be his native State and not the State of Rajasthan and that is the reason why his certificate of disability issued from the another State has not been accepted by the State of Rajasthan.

9. On the other hand learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the provisions of the Act of 2016, scheme of the Constitution, applicable rules and the clauses contained in the advertisement. Therefore, no interfere