The withdrawal of reservation for physically disabled persons and the petitioner's failure to secure the required marks for a General category candidate were central to the Court's decision.

K.M. Joseph, J.

The writ petition originally contained the following reliefs:

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letters dated 12.10.2011 and letter dated 18.11.2011 issued by respondent no. 1 (as contained in Annexure No. 11 and & 12 to the writ petition).

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to declare the act of respondent no. 2 & 3 of withdrawing the benefit of reservation given in terms of Section 33 of Parliamentary Act No. 1 of 1996 to physically disabled persons in the selection for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), as arbitrary and illegal.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 3 to hold interview of the petitioner and recommend his name for appointment against one of the 02 reserved posts for physically disabled persons with a further direction to respondent no.2 to appoint the petitioner from due date i.e. the date when other selected persons were appointed, with all consequential benefits including seniority.

(iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 to provide reservation to physically disabled persons for appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and/or other judicial posts till establishment of judiciary is exempted by the appropriate government by notification from application of Section 33 of the persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.

2. Subsequently, by way of an Amendment Application, which was allowed on 02.06.2015, relief nos. (i-a) and (i-b) were added, which read as follows:

(i-a) To set aside the appointments of General candidates on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) against vacancies reserved for physically disabled persons, in the selection made pursuant to advertisement dated 14.05.2011.

(i-b) To issue a declaration that in the absence of any exemption by the appropriate Government, as contemplated in the proviso to Section 33 of Parliamentary Act No. 1 of 1996, Rule 12 of Uttarakhand Judicial Service Rules, 2005 cannot be invoked for denying benefit of reservation.

3. Very briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:

i. Petitioner is a Law Graduate, enrolled with the Uttarakhand Bar Council in the year 2008 and practicing in the District Court. The right leg of the petitioner has been afflicted by Polio due to which he feels difficulty in walking. The District Medical Board has certified his disability at 54 %. Apart from that, he has no other ailment or medical problem and he is fit, both, physically and mentally.

ii. The first respondent informed the 2nd respondent (State of Uttarakhand) on 19.02.2011 that there are 18 vacancies of Civil Judge (J.D.). The requisition was sent. Another requisition was sent on 28.03.2011 to the 2nd respondent whereby 15 more vacancies on the post of Civil Judge (J.D.) were notified. The 2nd respondent sent the requisition as against 33 vacancies to the 3rd respondent Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’). The 3rd respondent issued Advertisement on 14.05.2011 for filling up the 33 vacancies. 24 vacancies were unreserved, 01 was reserved for Scheduled Caste category and 08 vacancies were reserved for OBC category candidates. Out of 24 unreserved vacancies, 9 vacancies were earmarked for Uttarakhand Women, 02 for Uttarakhand Rajya Andolankari, 01 post for sports persons and two for physically disabled persons. Petitioner applied and claimed benefit of reservation under physically handicapped category as also OBC category. Petitioner was favoured with an admit card. In the admit card, petitioner’s category was mentioned as OBC and the sub-category was mentioned as LOCO. The preliminary examination was held on 21.08.2011. It appears that on 24.08.2011, the 3rd respondent/Commission issued a letter to the 2nd respondent/State to clarify regarding the 2