The judgment establishes the importance of upholding reservation provisions for 'Differently-abled Persons' as per the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

JUDGMENT :

Since all these writ petition(s) involve similar controversy, therefore they are being heard and decided together. For the purpose of brevity facts of Writ Petition No.942 of 2023, Vinod Singh Jeena is being taken up for consideration of the controversy.

2. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the advertisement dated 09.08.2021 (Annexure no.1) and notification dated 30.11.2022 (Annexure no.6) issued by respondent no.2, whereby six posts of “Physically Handicapped” category (now termed as “Differently-abled Persons”) in the Uttarakhand Combined State (Civil) Lower Subordinate Service Examination-2021 advertised pursuant to the advertisement dated 09.08.2021, have been reverted back to the Government and order dated 18.08.2023 issued by respondent no.1 whereby reversion of six posts of Differently-abled Persons to the Government has been affirmed by the State Government and decided to carry forward these 6 posts to next selection. 3. The facts shorn-off unnecessary details are that an advertisement was issued by the respondent-Commission on 09.08.2021 for recruitment on different posts of State (Civil) Lower Subordinate Service. The controversy to be decided by this Court is limited with regard to the reservation meant for the Differently-abled Persons.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner participated in the Preliminary Examination and after being qualified in the Preliminary Examination, he participated in the Mains Examination, the result of which is not declared due to interim order passed by this Court qua the petitioner; however the result of other candidates have been declared. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that in the impugned advertisement the details of vacancies have been mentioned in Clause-2 of the advertisement and the vertical as well as horizontal reservation for the vacancies have also been bifurcated. He further pointed out that the advertisement impugned in the writ petition is incorrect, inasmuch as, the vacancies for each and every posts subject matter of this advertisement which have been bifurcated for horizontal reservation for the persons suffering with disability, who are entitled to get reservation for “Differently-abled Persons” category, are not as per law. The respondent-Commission acting on the principles of the Division Bench judgment passed in Writ Petition (S/B) No.48 of 2022, Manish Chauhan and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another has reverted 6 posts of Differently-abled Persons Category back to the Government and respondent no.1 vide order dated 18.08.2023 has carried forward these posts for next selection. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, it is incorrect, illegal and for deprivation of the petitioner, who will be deprived of the selection due to this arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of proper by the respondents.

5. The respondent-Commission instead of giving horizontal reservation to the person belonging to the “Differently-abled Persons” category has further wrongly categorize it for one post reserved for the “Unreserved Category Candidate/Open Category Candidate” and one for “O.B.C”. This, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, is arbitrary and illegal for the reason that such categorization of giving vertical reservation to the horizontal post cannot be made by the respondent-Commission. It is brought to the notice of this Court that a similar controversy arose before the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (S/B) No.49 2022, Manish Chauhan and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, which was decided by this Court vide judgment and order dated 27.07.2022, wherein the advertisement impugned in the that writ petition was quashed and the respondent-Commission was directed to bring out a fresh advertisement strictly in compliance with Rule 11 (4) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 2016”) and in l