The main legal point established in the judgment is that the reservation provisions for physically challenged persons should be interpreted in conjunction with the government orders in force at the time of the selection process, and the prospective application of government orders should be considered in concluded selections.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV KUMAR, J.

1. This intra-court appeal by the appellant is directed against the judgment dated 14.11.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court [“Writ Court”] in SWP No.953/2013 titled “Meenakshi Sharma Vs. State of J&K and others”, whereby the writ Court has dismissed the petition of the appellant.

2. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by Mr. Mazher Ali Khan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, we deem it appropriate to give brief resume of the factual antecedents leading up to the filing of this appeal.

3. Vide advertisement notification No.10 of 2005 dated 29.12.2005, the J&K Service Selection Board (SSB) invited applications from eligible candidates for making selection inter-alia to 240 posts of Teacher borne on District Cadre, Kathua. The minimum qualification prescribed for the post was 10+2. The appellant being 10+2 pass and suffering from permanent deformity of the right eye to the extent of 50% submitted her application seeking her consideration under the reserved category of “physically challenged” category. The appellant participated in the selection process, which resulted in issuance of final select list. The appellant did not find place in the select list, and therefore, brought her grievance to this Court through the medium of SWP No.1067/2008.

4. The writ petition filed by the appellant was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order and judgment dated 10.12.2012 directing the respondents to consider the case of the appellant for her appointment against the post of Teacher, District Cadre Kathua, in the light of change of circumstances viz issuance of Government Order No.231-SW of 2011 dated 22.12.2011. In compliance with the judgment dated 10.12.2012, the matter was considered by SSB and vide its order No.39 of 2013 dated 12.02.2013, the claim of the appellant for appointment under the “Physically challenged” category was rejected.

5. This order of rejection was assailed by the appellant before the writ Court in SWP No.953/2013. The appellant, apart from seeking Certiorari for quashing order of consideration bearing No.39-SSB of 2013 dated 12.02.2013, also prayed for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Service Selection Board to consider the appellant afresh in terms of Government Order of 2011 and in the light of order/judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in SWP No.1067/2008. The writ petition was contested by the Government as well as Service Selection Board. In its reply affidavit filed by respondent-Board, a plea was taken that Government Order No.231-SW of 2011 dated 22.12.2011, whereunder the candidates falling under the category of “blind and blindness with low vision” was also identified for the benefit of reservation provided to Physically challenged category for the post of Teacher was prospective in nature and would not apply to the selections which stood concluded prior to the issuance of the aforesaid Government Order. The matter was considered by the writ Court at length and vide judgment and order impugned in this appeal, the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.

6. The appellant has challenged the impugned order and judgment on numerous grounds. Amongst the other grounds, what was vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that under the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the State is under an obligation to allocate 3% of the posts for the category of “Physically challenged persons” with allocation of 1% share out of 3% to the category of blindness/low vision. It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the writ Court did not adjudicate the core issue whether the selection made by SSB under Government Order No.62-SW of 2001 was sustainable in view of contrary provisions of J&K Reservation Act and the Rules framed thereunder providing