The common issue raised in these writ petitions relate to reservation of 3% to physically handicapped category in terms of Section 33 of the Act of 1995 in recruitment exercise conducted by Jharkhand Academic Council for filling of post of Assistant Teachers in Upgraded High School under Adv. No. 93/11.

2. According to the petitioners, allocation of vacancies for physically handicapped category were made by the respondent authorities not on the basis of total number of vacancies in the relevant subjects but category wise in different subjects (General or Reserved). This, according to the petitioners, was also in teeth of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Another Vs. National Federation of the Blind and Others reported in (2013) 10 SCC 772.

3. Taking note of the aforesaid grievances of the petitioners, the respondent-State and Jharkhand Academic Council were asked to come out with their response. The response of the Jharkhand Academic Council was taken note in the order dated 20.05.2015 quoted herein-under :-

“In response to the writ petition, the Jharkhand Academic Council has filed an affidavit, which in sum and substance states that in view of the Circular of the State Government dated 7th November, 2007, Annexure B, 3% reservation to the physically handicapped will be provided from the quota, to which they belong (general or reserved). Therefore, respondent-JAC was directed by the HRD Department through letter dated 29.12.2014 to revise the list. They also stated at para 12 that only 11 sanctioned post are available for the MBC (BC I) category for Urdu teachers and the last candidate recommended in the category has scored 195 marks while petitioners obtained 188 and 181 marks respectively. Therefore, they could not figure in the final merit list of the Urdu teachers published on 18.3.2015.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that this interpretation of the provision is not in accord with the provision of Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. He also relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & ors Vs. National Federation of the Blind and ors. 2013 (4) JLJR (SC) 310, (2013) 10 SCC 772 to submit that computation of 3% reservation has to be done on the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength, which in the instant case as per advertisement, Annexure 1, is 134 invited by the Council itself.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State and JAC are, therefore, given further three weeks time to respond the legal issues involved therein.

List this case along with WP(S) No.1538/2015 on 2nd July, 2015.”

4. Apparently, Jharkhand Academic Council was making recommendation against physically handicapped category in different category (General or Reserved) for a particular subject and not on total number of vacancies in the cadre strength in the said subject notified under the said Advertisement. Therefore, the stand of the respondent-State was required to be ascertained. After order dated 20.05.2015, the matter was adjourned once again and it was felt that on issue, which has wider repercussion and implementation of provisions of the Act of 1995 are based upon Resolution Dated 07.11.2007 of the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Raj Bhasha, Government of Jharkhand, presence of the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Raj Bhasha, Government of Jharkhand was also necessary. They were allowed to be impleaded vide order dated 08.07.2015. The order dated 08.07.2015 is also quoted herein-under :-

“The affidavit of Respondent-J.A.C. placing reliance upon an office memorandum of Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Raj Bhasha, Government of Jharkhand dated 7th November, 2007, is itself based upon office memorandum dated 29th December, 2005 issued by Ministry of Public Grievances and Pension, Government of