The court emphasized the need to create a barrier-free environment for physically challenged persons and held that their appointments should not be unjustly cancelled due to minor discrepancies.

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

1. The petitioner is a physically challenged person having a 60% hearing impairment and having all the qualifications prescribed under the law for the post of Assistant Teacher – L.T. Grade (Science). The petitioner was an applicant in the selection process initiated by the Government of Uttarakhand in the year 2014 by which an advertisement was published on 23.02.2014 calling application from the eligible candidates, which was subsequently duly amended on 25.02.2014. It is again an admitted case that out of the total number of seats of Assistant Teacher in the State, 3 per cent posts were reserved for persons with disability.

2. The petitioner has all the qualifications for the post of Assistant Teacher – L.T. Grade (Science), including Teacher Eligibility Test, which is now mandatory requirement under the law. The petitioner had applied under the physically challenged quota in the General category. The marks obtained by the petitioner in the selection process are 110.75. He was subsequently selected and appointed under the physically challenged category vide order dated 14.05.2016 and was allotted a school, namely, Government Inter College, Mehatgaon, Post Ratgal, District Almora.

3. It appears that when the petitioner reached his designated school to give his joining, the Principal of the school noticed “anomaly”, which according to the Principal was that the date of advertisement though was 23.02.2014 but the certificate of physical disability, on which the petitioner was relying upon, was dated 29.10.2014. Admittedly the petitioner had obtained the physical disability certificate, which shows that the petitioner had a hearing impairment of 60%, after the date of advertisement. The Principal has refused to give joining to the petitioner and reported the matter to the appointing authority i.e., Divisional Additional Director (Intermediate Education), Kumaon Division. Thereafter on 17.06.2016 the petitioner was given a show cause to appear in the office of Additional Director (Intermediate Education), Kumaon Division along with all the relevant documents. The documents of the petitioner were examined and it was found that the physical disability certificate of the petitioner is post-dated i.e. after the date of advertisement (i.e. 29.10.2014). Hence vide order dated 12.07.2016 the Additional Director (Intermediate Education), Kumaon Division cancelled the appointment of the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.07.2016, which is annexure No. 14 to the writ petition, before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would first argue that he is liable to be considered under the category of physically disabled person. It is not a case where the physical disability itself occurred after the date of the advertisement i.e. dated 23.02.2014. According to the petitioner, the physical disability was in existence at the time of advertisement and in order to substantiate his argument, the petitioner has produced before this Court a medical certificate dated 16.01.2014 issued by Dr. H.C. Gorkoti, M.S. (E.N.T.), Base Hospital, Almora. The medical certificate is annexed as annexure No. 2 to the writ petition, which reads as under :-

“Medical Certificate

This is to certify that Balam Singh Adhikari S/o Sri Madan Singh Adhikari, Village Talli Reuni, P.O. Majkhali, District Almora is a case of hearing loss (60%).

He was under my treatment from 16.01.2014 for the same problem.”

5. This certificate is dated 16.01.2014, which says that the petitioner is under the treatment of the concerned doctor, who issued that certificate. This certificate is admittedly not under the prescribed performa, and therefore, the respondents can definitely have an objection to it, inasmuch as it was not under the performa prescribed by the Government. However, the certificate in a prescribed performa was given by the petitioner only on 29.10.2014, which is annexure No. 2 to the writ petition, which sh