The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Disability Act 1998 does not prevent the reversion of a person suffering from disability to his parent department from the post he has been deputed.

1. Vide this order I intend to dispose of the main writ petition at the stage of admission itself as learned counsel for both the sides have consented for the same.

2. In brief, the case set up by the petitioner is that vide order dated 16.10.1987 (Annexure-A) he was appointed as Teacher in the month of November, 1987 and was transferred as Warden in `Gujjar and Bakerwal Hostel’ in the year 1987 itself. Since then he is continuously working as Warden and presently posted in `Gujjar and Bakerwal Hostel’ Rajouri. In between also he was transferred in different Hostels in the State. He had met with an accident when he was posted as Warden at Doda and this resulted into his 60% permanent disability. The grievance projected herein is against the order dated 31.03.2008 (Annexure-H) passed by respondent No.1 vide which he has now been repatriated to his parent department and in his place, respondent No.8 has been picked up.

3. While issuing notice to the respondents, implementation of the impugned order was stayed by this Court. It was, however, subject to objections from the other side.

4. Respondent No.1, 2 & 8 have already filed their respective objections to the main petition. Respondent No.8 has also filed an application bearing CMP No. 526/2009 for vacation/ modification of the interim order. Mr. Raina, learned Sr. Advocate submits that the application for vacation of the stay order may be treated as reply to the CMP No. 20/2009 filed by the petitioner for the interim relief. Allowed. However, the remaining respondents have not tendered their reply till date.

5. Heard learned counsel for both the sides at length and perused the record minutely.

6. Mr. Johal submits that continuance as Warden in `Gujjar and Bakerwal Hostel’ for long 21 years gives the petitioner a substantive right of continuation for the same post. He submits that in fact the petitioner was appointed on this post by transfer and, therefore, it cannot be said to be a case of transfer/ deputation from parent department, as such, the impugned order of his reversion is legally not sustainable. While giving the flashback of the earlier writ petitions, Mr. Johal submits that in September, 1991, the Government came up with an order for constitution of a Divisional Level Selection Committee for the purpose of making adjustment against the posts of Wardens/ Assistant Wardens in `Gujjar and Bakerwal Hostels’. Since the said order was affecting the service career of the petitioner, he filed writ petition bearing SWP No. 1142/1991, which, however, came to be dismissed on 11.08.1998. Thereafter also the petitioner filed two writ petitions on different occasions bearing SWP No. 1127/2004, which was dismissed as withdrawn with a permission to file fresh one and SWP No. 1743/2005, which was again dismissed as withdrawn with the same liberty as during the pendency of the said petition, order of transfer (impugned herein) was passed. In the aforesaid writ petitions, the petitioner had challenged the policy prescribing the procedure for filling up the posts of Wardens in Gujjar and Bakerwal Hostels’.

7. Mr. Johal then submits that the petitioner is a Handicap person with disability of more than 60% as he had suffered a serious accident during the aforesaid period. Therefore, he is entitled to be adjusted/ appointed on the basis of his reservation granted under the provisions of `Jammu & Kashmir (Persons with Disabilities Equal opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1998’ (hereinafter for short to be referred as `Disability Act’). He, in this regard, has drawn the attention of this Court to provisions of Sections 21, 22 & 25 of the Act, requiring 3% vacancies to be reserved for classification for persons with disabilities. He submits that in the aforesaid two writ petitions (SWP No. 1127/2004 and SWP No. 1743/2005) also the petitioner had also taken the same plea on the basis of Disability Act and is agitating it once again through the instant petition.

8. Mr. Jo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document