IMPORTANT POINT
The court reinforced the legal obligation to reserve posts for differently-abled persons as mandated by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Purohit, J.

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.68 of 2023 (Chinkle Choudhary) are taken up for consideration of the controversy.

2. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the advertisement dated 10.08.2021 (Annexure no.1) and notification dated 30.11.2022 (Annexure no.8) issued by respondent no.2, whereby four posts of “Physically Handicapped” category (now termed as “Differently-abled Persons”) in the Uttarakhand Combined State (Civil)/Upper Subordinate Services (Mains) Examination-2021 advertised pursuant to the advertisement dated 10.08.2021, have been reverted.

3. The facts shorn-of unnecessary details are that the advertisement was issued by the respondent-Commission on 10.08.2021 for recruitment of different posts of State (Civil)/Upper Subordinate Services Examination. 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 petitioners submitted that petitioners participated in the Preliminary Examination and after being qualified in the same, they participated in the Mains Examination, the result of which is not declared, however the result of other candidates has 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 post, which is subject matter of this advertisement, have been bifurcated for horizontal reservation but for the persons suffering with disability, who are entitled to get reservation under the “Differently-bled Persons” category, is not as per law. The respondent Commission acting on the principles of the Division Bench judgment passed in Writ Petition (S/B) No.49 of 2022, Manish Chauhan and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, has reverted 04 posts of Differently-abled Persons Category back to the Government. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, it is incorrect, illegal and for deprivation of the petitioners, who would be deprived of the selection due to this arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power 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 categorized the post reserved for the “Unreserved Category Candidate/Open Category Candidate” and for “Other Backward Classes’ Category”. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, this act is arbitrary and illegal for the reason that such categorization i.e. converting vertical reservation to the horizontal, 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 of 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 Rules 2017 in light of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India and another, reported in AIR 1993 SC 477.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent-Commission has brought to notice of this Court that on a review petition filed by the Commission, the said advertisement was retained and the Commission was directed to comply with the direction given in Manish Chauhan’s judgment as r