Eligibility for appointment in reserved categories depends on the specific nature of disability as defined by law, not merely on the candidate's performance.

JUDGMENT :

MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J.

The appellant-Odisha Public Service Commission being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.05.2023 passed in W.P. (C) No.10399 of 2020 by the learned Single Judge have filed the appeal.

In the writ petition, the petitioner had sought for direction from this Court to be appointed as Assistant Agriculture Engineers in Group-B pursuant to the advertisement No.2 of 2019-20 issued by the appellant- Commission inviting online applications. The advertisement was pursuant to the requisition filed by the Agriculture & Farmers Empowerment Department, Government of Odisha. The learned Single Judge after considering the writ petition and the counter filed by the opposite party-Commission allowed the writ petition. The operative portions of the judgment which are relevant for adjudication are reproduced herein:

“23. From the pleadings of the parties, so also submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and the documents on record, as detailed above, it is amply clear that the Petitioner was eligible to apply for the post of Assistant Agriculture Engineer (Group-B) in terms of the advertisement No.02 of 2019-20. Though rightly the OPSC entertained the candidature of the Petitioner under PwD category and he was allowed to appear the Written Examination, the reason best known to the authority concerned, he was not called for the viva voce test. The Coordinate Bench, in W.P.(C) No.3377 of 2020, as an interim, rightly ordered to allow the Petitioner to appear in the Viva Voce Test. Though the said Writ Petition was finally disposed of on 26.02.2022 with an observation that it is open to the OPSC to declare the result of the candidates, to the reason best known, the OPSC declared the result of all the candidates, excepting the Petitioner. The result of the Petitioner was declared, being directed to do so vide Order dated 09.03.2023 in the present Writ Petition.

24. Admittedly there were 5 vacancies under the reserved category for persons with disabilities and as per the Counter Affidavit filed by the OPSC, 3 persons were selected and appointed against the said vacancies meant for the said category and 2 posts are still lying vacant and as stated in the Compliance Affidavit dated 09.03.2023, the 3rd candidate secured total 91.476 marks.

25. Further, as stated in the Compliance Affidavit dated 27.03.2023, the cut-off mark is being fixed based on the marks secured by the last candidate. As per the Affidavit filed by the OPSC, the last candidate secured 91.476 marks. As because there was no suitable candidate under the said category of PwD, only 3 persons were selected and appointed as against 5 vacancies and the Petitioner has secured total 83.506 marks, i.e. just below the marks secured by the third candidate, who has already been selected and appointed as Assistant Agriculture Engineer (Group-B).

26. Since as per previous advertisement made by OPSC for the year 2014-15, persons with low vision were considered to be eligible for applying under PH category for the post of Assistant Agriculture Engineer (Group-B), the advertisement for the year 2019-20 being identical to the advertisement for the year 2014-15, this Court is of the view that OPSC was not justified to debar the Petitioner taking a plea that Petitioner having disability of low vision, is not falling under the PwD category for appointment in the post of Assistant Agriculture Engineer (Group-B). Hence, this Court directs the OPSC to declare the Petitioner to be a selected candidate under the PwD category as he belongs to 1st subcategory i.e. person suffering from blindness or low vision and intimate the requisitioning Authority forthwith to do the further needful in accordance with law.”

We have heard in extenso the learned c