The Court emphasized that physically disabled individuals constitute a unique category entitled to equal treatment without further classification such as caste or religion, mandating adherence to merit-based appointments under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.

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.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

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

(i) Paradip Port Trust (hereinafter “PPT”)which is an autonomous body under the Ministry of Shipping, Government of India, invited applications for filling up backlog vacancies in an advertisement dated 22.06.2017 special recruitment drive for the persons who are physical disability (PwDs). The Petitioners were applicants for the post of Junior Assistant with the scale of pay of Rs.16,300/- to Rs.28,200/- which is Group ’C’ post. There was total nine posts advertised for the post of junior assistants.

(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 mandate of law under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 (hereinafter “Disabilities Act”). Similarly/ Prafulla Gajendra Maharana (“Petitioner No.2”) is having 70% permanent disabilities which is also a bench mark disability (locomotors disability) and leg deformity pursuant to the advertisement the petitioner No.1 was called for Skill Test on 16.10.2017. Similarly, the petitioner no.2 was also called for skill test.

(iii) The Petitioners came out successful in skill test; yet no appointment order was issued. Therefore, the petitioners sought for information under RTI Act from the PPT on 11.12.2018. Definite information was supplied that the recruitment process for the post of Jr. Assistant for PwD is under process and not yet completed. With regard to specific query, it was definitely answered that, pursuant to the advertisement dated 22.6.2017, a select list panel was prepared by the PPT wherein the petitioner No.1 is at Sl. No.1 of the panel and petitioner no.2 is at Sl.No.4 of the panel.

(iv) Before the PPT Authority, it has been reported that the sanctioned strength for the position of Junior Assistant is 50. Currently, only 9 positions are filled, leaving 41 vacancies. It was stated by the Ministry of shipping before the Supreme Court that there are 49 backlog vacancies for PwDs.

(v) Since the Opp. Parties had taken action in appointing some persons but did not appoint the petitioners, they submitted representations before the PPT as well as before the Chief Commissioner seeking employment of persons with Disabilities. It transpires that one Rajesh Moharana was given appointment as Junior Assistant on 17.4.2018. Similarly another person namely, Suchitra Swain, was appointed on 18.5.2018. One Ashok Ch. Jena was appointed in the schedule caste category as it appears from letter dated 11.12.2018 obtained under the RTI Act.

(vi) When appointment was made in respect to some persons and the petitioners could not be issued an order of appointment the petitioners submitted representations as well as sought for information under the RTI Act. In response thereto, on 26.2.2019, it was indicated by the PPT that the decision was purportedly made to fill up the vacancies under PwD category for the post of Jr