The main legal point established in the judgment is that promotions and reservation for physically handicapped employees were made in accordance with the applicable policies and criteria.

DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.

1. Petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing impugned order dated 5.2.2015 (Annexure P-17) whereby claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer w.e.f. 4.12.2013, after promoting Er. Arun Kumar as Engineer-in-Chief against Roster Point No. 11, has been rejected. A further prayer has also been made for quashing of order dated 13.10.2014 whereby respondent No.2 has been promoted against Roster Point No. 471 whereas the said roster point was reserved for the handicapped category. It has also been prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to maintain roster for the post of Engineer-in-Chief and operate the same in terms of instructions applicable to the case of the petitioner.

2. Briefly the facts of the case, as made out in the present petition, are that the petitioner is handicapped having 60% permanent disability. Initially, he was appointed as Trainee Engineer by the Punjab State Electricity Board, which was predecessor of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as respondent-Corporation) vide letter dated 27.2.1986. Thereafter, he was promoted as Executive Engineer vide order dated 31.3.2005. The petitioner developed physical ailment due to multiple sclerosis and became permanently handicapped having 60% permanent disability as reflected in the handicapped certificate dated 13.6.2003 issued by the Competent Authority. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted as Sr. Executive Engineer/Additional Superintending Engineer on 31.3.2005. He is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not promoting him to the post of Chief Engineer in spite of the fact that he was senior-most handicapped employee in the cadre of Superintending Engineers. As per notification dated 23.9.2011 (Annexure P-5), the physically handicapped employees were given 3% reservation in service and roster points were kept reserved for promotional posts including the handicapped employees. Thereafter, another notification was issued on 14.12.2012 (Annexure P-6) which was applicable w.e.f. 6.3.2011. Respondent-Corporation adopted the said notification vide circular No. 12/2012 to the effect that reservation was to be provided for promotion in Groups A, B, C and D services to the handicapped employees. Petitioner made representation to respondent No.1 on 7.1.2013 to consider his case for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer in terms of circular No. 12/2012 dated 3.12.2012 and even sent another letter dated 26.7.2013 stating therein that no engineer belonging to the handicapped or blind/hearing impaired category was senior to him and requested for deemed date of promotion as Superintending Engineer. Meanwhile, respondents promoted Chaman Lal Verma, Chief Engineer to the post of Engineer-in-Chief vide order dated 4.12.2013. A tentative seniority list was also issued on 10.3.2014, according to which petitioner was at Serial No.1 in the cadre of Sr. Executive Engineer/Additional Superintending Engineer.

3. Petitioner has claimed his right of consideration for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer on the ground that the respondents have filled up 440th Roster Point which was meant to be filled up from amongst the handicapped category, by promoting a general category employee. The Roster Point 471 fell vacant on 13.10.2014 but it was filled up by general category candidate i.e. respondent No.2. The grouse of the petitioner is that said roster point should have been filled up by physically handicapped category candidate whereas it was filled up by the general category candidate. Petitioner also filed CWP No. 24735 of 2014 before this Court and said petition was disposed of with a direction to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Thereafter, the claim of the petitioner was r