The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, regarding the reservation of posts for physically challenged candidates based on the total number of vacancies and the priority given to different categories of disabilities.

JUDGMENT :

The instant appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 10.12.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.4251 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been dismissed declining to pass positive direction in favour of the writ petitioner for his appointment on the post of Post Graduate Teacher in the physically handicapped category.

2. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under :-

The respondent authorities came out with an advertisement inviting applications for appointment on the post of Post Graduate Teachers in +2 Schools. The writ petitioner had applied under MBC category by specifically mentioning in the application form that he belongs to physically challenged category. The admit card was not issued on the ground that he was over-aged. Aggrieved thereof, he represented before State Disabled Commissioner, whereupon though admit card was issued but again in the admit card the Physically Handicapped category i.e. PH, in which the petitioner belongs was left out. However, the writ petitioner participated in the examination but when the result was published, the name of the petitioner was not found in the select list. However, the writ petitioner after downloading his result from the website, could be able to know that in Paper I, he has obtained 43.5 marks and in Paper II he has obtained 170 marks. Thereafter, the writ petitioner got information from enquiry that physically handicapped candidates having less than 170 marks have been appointed and the petitioner has been left out.

The writ petitioner, in view of the aforesaid information, approached this Court by invoking the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking therein a direction upon the respondents to appoint the writ petitioner on the post of Post Graduate Teacher under PH category.

The writ petitioner has taken the ground that even though the advertisement stipulates that there shall be 3% horizontal reservation for the physically challenged candidates and out of total 230 vacancies, 8 posts falls under the reserved category of physically handicapped. Further, the writ petitioner belongs to Most Backward Category and as per the averments made in the counter affidavit no candidate in MBC (PH) has been selected. Therefore, in that view of the matter, direction has been sought for appointment of the writ petitioner under appropriate category.

The respondents have taken the plea before the learned Single Judge that against total seats of 115 (non-teacher quota, in which, the petitioner belongs) 04 seats were reserved for disabled persons and they were offered appointments as per the details furnished in tabular form in the counter affidavit wherein 01 General candidate under PH category has been provided appointment who has got 248 marks. However, in the Backward Class 02 candidates under PH category have been provided appointment who have obtained 248 and 204 marks while in Schedule Tribe under PH category, 01 candidate has been provided appointment who has obtained 142 marks but the writ petitioner has secured 170 marks in paper-II and 43.5 marks in paper-I which was not adequate to secure position in the select list.

Further ground has been taken that among these 04 seats, 02 seats were reserved for Visually Handicapped (VH) candidates, 01 seat was reserved for Hearing Handicapped (HH) candidate and 01 seat was reserved for Orthopedically Handicapped (OH) candidate and accordingly, 04 candidates were given appointment and they are now working.

Besides the aforesaid issue, it has also been agitated that the writ petitioner has not made the candidates already selected as party respondent to the present proceeding.

Learned Single Judge, a