JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 13.09.2019 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.3 vide which the appointment of the petitioner as Shift Attendant, against the reserved post for the disabled persons, has been cancelled.

CONTENTIONS

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner participated in the selection process in terms of the advertisement No.3 of 2016 under Category 1 i.e. Shift Attendant. A total of 2426 posts for Shift Attendants were advertised across multiple departments, out of which 36 posts were kept reserved for partially deaf candidates. Accordingly, on the basis of the online application (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner, respondent No.6-Commission issued him a roll number, as indicated by the admit card (Annexure P-3), with which he appeared in the written examination. Thereafter, on the basis of written examination, respondent No.6-Commission conducted scrutiny of documents and an interview for the post of Shift Attendant. The final result was declared on 08.03.2019 (Annexure P-4) whereby the petitioner was declared successful.

3. Further, the petitioner was issued an offer letter dated 27.05.2019 (Annexure P-5) for appointment to the post of Shift Attendant with the respondent-UHBVNL. The petitioner accepted the appointment vide intimation letter dated 07.06.2019 and submitted the required documents along with a medical certificate to respondent No.2-Chief Engineer/Operation, UHBVNL, as discernible from Annexure P-6. After due verification of the documents submitted by the petitioner, he was appointed as Shift Attendant by respondent No.2 and was directed to join duty in the office of respondent No.4, as indicated by the order of appointment dated 07.06.2019 (Annexure P-7). Accordingly, on 20.06.2019, the petitioner reported to respondent No.4 i.e. Superintending Engineer (OP) Circle, UHBVNL Sonepat, who further directed the petitioner to join in the office of respondent No.5-XEN S/U Division, UHBVNL Sonepat. However, respondent No.5-XEN refused to accept his joining as there was no requirement of a Shift Attendant in his office. Consequently, the petitioner approached respondent No.2-Chief Engineer/Operation, UHBVNL and informed him of the situation. Thereafter, much to the surprise of the petitioner, respondent No.3-Administrative Officer, UHBVNL, vide impugned order dated 13.09.2019 (Annexure P-8) cancelled the offer of appointment made to the petitioner by passing a non-speaking and cryptic order in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner made a representation on 09.03.02020 seeking withdrawal of the impugned order dated 13.09.2019 (Annexure P-8). However, the same remained unheeded.

4. Learned counsel further refers to the advertisement (Annexure P-1) and submits that in order to claim reservation in the said category, the applicant ought to have not less than 40% of the relevant disability. Since the petitioner meets the minimum benchmark as set out in the advertisement (Annexure P-1), his appointment cannot be cancelled, especially since he has been selected in pursuance of the proper process. She further refers to the order dated 14.03.2024, vide which this Court had asked the respondent-UHBVNL to file an affidavit indicating the availability of any job with the UHBVNL, other than the field offices, which can be performed by a 100% disabled person as well. In compliance with the same, an affidavit was filed, however, it does not satisfactorily answer the query posed. The said affidavit merely stated that there is no place in the field offices suitable for a 100% disabled person.

5. As such, the action of the respondent-UHBVNL is contrary to the mandate of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (in short ‘the RPWD’) which requires identification of