Kanakalta Sahu vs Paradip Port Trust

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Ori) 410

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.K.PANIGRAHI
Kanakalta Sahu – Appellant
Versus
Paradip Port Trust – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Digambara Mishra, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Partha Mukherji, Adv.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's challenge to non-issuance of appointment. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments for equitable appointment under pwd category. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's analysis on recruitment discrepancies. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 , 11 , 13 , 14)
4. legal precedent against further classification in pwd appointments. (Para 8 , 10 , 12)
5. court's directive to reconsider appointments and eliminate sub-categorization. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)

JUDGMENT :

1. The Petitioner, through this Writ Petition, challenges the actions of the Opposite Parties in failing to issue the appointment order in favour of the Petitioner, despite her selection for the post of Jr. Assistant, which constitutes violation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the directives of Supreme Court issued pursuant thereto.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(ii) The Petitioners are eligible in all respects to hold the post of Junior Assistant. Kanakalata Sahu (“Petitioner No.1”) is having locomotors disability which is permanent physical impairment assessed @30%; both the ears with permanent physical impairment assessed @ 48% total disability being 78% which is a benchmark disability as per the mand