Back
2019 Supreme(All) 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ajay Bhanot, J.
Akshay Kumar Rai - Appellants
Vs.
State of U.P. and Ors. - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41622 of 2014
Decided On : 12-03-2019
For the Appellant : Gopal Ji Rai and P.N. Saxsena
For the Respondents: C.S.C., Ajay Kumar, Avneesh Tripathi and Rajeev Misra
Headnote:
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act, 1995 –Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14, 16, 21 – Advertisement was run by Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission in various newspapers inviting applications for appointments to advertised posts –Advertised posts included post of Arth Evam Sankhya Nhikshak –Advertisement stated that reservation of posts per law for category of Physically Handicapped Persons would be applicable to recruitment proceedings –Petitioner applied in response to advertisement for appointment as Arth Evam Sankhya Nirikshak against quota of physically handicapped persons – Petitioner was called for interview by letter –Interview was conducted – Petitioner was asked to submit fresh disability certificate consistent with approved proforma for recruitment proceedings within a period of 21 days – He submitted same –Petitioner was not in list of selected candidates – Subsequent enquiries revealed that reservation for physically handicapped persons was not made by respondents –Rationale for denying benefit of reservation in Physically Handicapped Persons category to petitioner has been stated in counter-affidavits filed by UPPSC and State respondents –Counter-affidavit discloses that State Government grants benefit of reservation to physically handicapped persons only on posts identified by Government of India for such appointments – Post is not reserved for physically handicapped persons–Held, Refusal of respondents to apply reservation in favour of handicapped persons on post in question and consequent denial of consideration of petitioner for appointment is arbitrary, illegal –Action of respondents is violative of rights of petitioner under Act of 1995 and his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India – Writ Petition Allowed. (Paras 44, 47).
Facts of The Case:
Advertisement was run by Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission in various newspapers inviting applications for appointments to advertised posts –Advertised posts included post of Arth Evam Sankhya Nhikshak –Advertisement stated that reservation of posts per law for category of Physically Handicapped Persons would be applicable to recruitment proceedings –Petitioner applied in response to advertisement for appointment as Arth Evam Sankhya Nirikshak against quota of physically handicapped persons – Petitioner was called for interview by letter –Interview was conducted – Petitioner was asked to submit fresh disability certificate consistent with approved proforma for recruitment proceedings within a period of 21 days – He submitted same –Petitioner was not in list of selected candidates – Subsequent enquiries revealed that reservation for physically handicapped persons was not made by respondents –Rationale for denying benefit of reservation in Physically Handicapped Persons category to petitioner has been stated in counter-affidavits filed by UPPSC and State respondents –Counter-affidavit discloses that State Government grants benefit of reservation to physically handicapped persons only on posts identified by Government of India for such appointments – Post is not reserved for physically handicapped persons.
Finding of The Court:
Refusal of respondents to apply reservation in favour of handicapped persons on post in question and consequent denial of consideration of petitioner for appointment is arbitrary, illegal –Action of respondents is violative of rights of petitioner under Act of 1995 and his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Result: Appeal Allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Bhanot, J.
1. Heard Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Gopal Ji Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Avneesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'UPPSC') and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. The petitioner seeks relief of grant of appointment, under the reservation made for persons with disabilities, on the post of Arth Evam Sankhya Nirikshak, pursuant to selections conducted by UPPSC.
3. The facts relevant to a judgment in the controversy are beyond the pale of dispute. These facts will now be summarized. An advertisement was run by Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission in various newspapers on 24.11.2006, inviting applications for appointments to the advertised posts. The advertised posts included the post of Arth Evam Sankhya Nhikshak. The advertisement stated that reservation of posts as per law for the category of Physically Handicapped Persons would be applicable to the recruitment proceedings.
4. The educational qualification of the petitioner is M.A. (Economics). The petitioner is fully eligible to be appointed to the post of Arth Evam Sankhya Nirikshak. The petitioner applied in response to the advertisement for appointment as Arth Evam Sankhya Nirikshak against the quota of physically handicapped persons.
5. The petitioner suffers from a permanent orthopedic handicap. The physical disability of the petitioner is described in the Disability Certificate under the head of Locomotor disability. The Disability Certificate records that the right forearm of the petitioner is affected and has an impaired reach. Physical disability of the petitioner is rated at 60% in the disability certificate.
6. The selection proceeding consisted of two parts, namely the objective test and the interview. The objective test was held on 9.3.2014. The petitioner qualified the objective test and was declared successful. The petitioner was called for interview by letter dated 13.6.2014. The interview was conducted on 26.6.2014.
7. In the course of the interview on 26.6.2014, the petitioner was asked to submit a fresh disability certificate consistent with the approved proforma for the recruitment proceedings within a period of 21 days. The petitioner submitted the required disability certificate in the prescribed proforma on 15.7.2014. It is undisputed that the disability of the petitioner falls in the ambit of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1995').
8. The results of the selection proceedings were declared on 4.7.2014. The name of the petitioner was not in the list of selected candidates. Subsequent enquiries revealed that reservation for physically handicapped persons was not made by the respondents on the post of Arth Evam Sankhya Nirikshak.
9. The rationale for denying the benefit of reservation in the Physically Handicapped Persons category to the petitioner has been stated in the counter-affidavits filed by the UPPSC and the State respondents.
10. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State respondents asserts that the post in question is not earmarked for reservation. It is further averred that Arth Evam Sankhya Nirikshak is also posted as Assistant Development Officer (Statistics).
11. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the UPPSC supplements the reasoning of the State Government by relying on certain clarificatory correspondence from the Special Secretary, Government of U.P. dated 4.2.2002. The said communication dated 4.2.2002 discloses that the State Government grants the benefit of reservation to physically handicapped persons only on posts identified by the Government of India for such appointments.
12. As per the communication dated 4.2.2002 the post of Arth Evam Sankhya Nirikshak/Sahayak Vikas Adhikari is not included in the posts identified by the Government of India for appoin
