The court ruled that authorities must declare separate cut-off marks for physically handicapped candidates to ensure fair representation as per statutory mandates.

JUDGMENT :

Abdul Moin, J.

1. Vakalatnama and counter affidavit filed today by Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Rahul Bajaj, assisted by Shri Taha Bin Tasneem and Shri Harsh Vardhan Kedia, learned counsels for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1 & 3, Shri Ashwani Kumar Agnihotri, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states that as there are no disputed questions raised in the counter affidavit, as such he does not intend to file reply thereto.

4. Under challenge is the order dated 19.6.2023, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition, whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor (English) under reserved quota of physically handicapped category has been rejected. Further prayer is for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Assistant Professor (English) from final merit list of reservation quota of physically handicapped category.

5. Bereft of unnecessary details the facts set forth are that the petitioner suffers from 100% disability of optical atrophy of both eyes and is a hundred percent permanently physically handicapped person. Copy of the physical handicap certificate is annexure 3 to the writ petition.

6. The respondents had advertised vacancies of Assistant Professors vide advertisement, a copy of which is annexure 6 to the writ petition. So far as the dispute is concerned the same pertains to 5 posts of Assistant Professor (English) out of total 133 posts of Assistant Professor (English). The five posts are reserved for the physically handicapped candidates as per table 2 of the said advertisement which is part of annexure 6 of the writ petition and would relate to clause 3 of the advertisement. Thus out of 133 posts of Assistant Professor (English) five posts were reserved for physically handicapped candidates to which there is no dispute.

7. The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor (English) in pursuance to the said advertisement. A final merit list was declared on 02.07.2022, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the writ petition, in which the name of the petitioner finds place at serial 345 having secured 127.22 marks against physically handicapped category.

8. It is contended that a perusal of the selected physically handicapped unreserved selected candidates (General Category) to the final merit list would indicate as per the table made in paragraph 20 of the writ petition the following position :

9. In paragraph 21 of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner stood just below last selected physically handicapped candidate namely Shri Durgesh Mishra in terms of his merit against unreserved physically handicapped category.

10. Incidentally, there is no denial to the aforesaid averment in paragraph 24 of the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 4 wherein the reply to paragraphs 20 and 21 of the writ petition have been given.

11. As per the averments made both in the writ petition and in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit dated 21.07.2023 the candidate whose name found place at the top of the