Identification of posts for disabled persons under Section 32 governs reservation of vacancies. No error found in refusal to appoint petitioner due to lack of appropriate post identification for locomotor disability.

JUDGMENT :

Abdul Moin,J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court by the learned Standing Counsel is taken on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not intend to file any objection to the aforesaid affidavit and prays that the matter may be heard finally.

3. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to hear and decide the matter finally.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

5. The facts of the case have already been noted in detail in the order dated 23.07.2025. For the sake of convenience, the relevant extract of the order dated 23.07.2025 is reproduced below:-

“1. Heard.

2. The facts of the case have already been noted in detail in the order dated 09.05.2025 which, for the sake of convenience, is reproduced below:-

"1. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states that earlier he had moved an application for impleadment of Sri Ramesh Chandra Balmiki, which was allowed and he was impleaded as respondent no.3 in the array of parties. Now he does not want to press on the writ petition against respondent no.3 and prays that respondent no.3 be deleted from the array of parties.

2. To the aforesaid prayer, learned Standing Counsel has no objection.

3. Accordingly, let the respondent no.3 be deleted from the array of parties within a week.

4. Heard.

5. The matter has been listed before this Court after nomination by Hon'ble Chief Justice.

6. Under challenge is the order dated 24.04.2009, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, whereby the representation of the petitioner for appointment as Safai Karmi has been rejected.

7. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that an advertisement dated 28.06.2008, a copy of which is Annexure-5 to the writ petition, was issued by respondent no.2 inviting applications for various vacancies. The controversy revolves around 499 vacancies for Other Backward Class (OBC).

8. The petitioner, an OBC, applied in pursuance to the said advertisement and claims to have been allotted Roll No.1330 as appears from the interview letter, a copy of which is Annexure-6 to the petition.

9. It is contended that the interview took place on 12.09.2008 yet when the respondents declared the result against his roll number one Sri Ramesh Chandra Balmik was indicated to have been selected.

10. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court and this Court required the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.8095 (SS) of 2008. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner claims to have submitted his representation which has been rejected vide the order impugned dated 24.04.2009 and hence the petition.

11. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that apart from the fact the petitioner is an OBC and is also a physically handicapped as per the handicap certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer which indicates his permanent disability as 40%, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-4 to the petition, and as per the averments made in paragraph 6 of the supplementary counter affidavit dated 20.05.2015 it emerges that the respondents admit of having only filled in 494 posts of OBC vis-a-vis 499 posts that were advertised and have also indicated that the remaining vacancies against OBC are vacant due to non-availability of the applications for the post in question as the same belonged to deaf/partially deaf (PD/D) as such it is apparent that sufficient number of vacancies were available with the respondents on which the petitioner could have been appointed in his own category.

12. Le