IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the reservation for Differently-abled Persons must be properly categorized and adhered to, as per legal precedents, ensuring fair treatment in the selection process.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Purohit, J.

The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the advertisement dated 30.11.2022 (Annexure no.1) and with a further prayer to direct the respondents to issue the result of Mains Examination considering 04 posts of Uttarakhand Combined State Civil/Upper Sub-ordinate Service Exam, 2021 under the category of Differently-abled Person.

2. The facts shorn-off unnecessary details are that an advertisement was issued by the respondent-Commission on 30.11.2022 for recruitment on 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.

3. 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, however the result of other candidates have been declared. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner 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 for the persons suffering with disability, who are entitled to get reservation for “Differently-abled 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 will be deprived of the selection due to this arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of proper by the respondents. It is further argued that 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 “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.

4. The controversy raised in this petition is no longer res integra in view of judgment and order dated 19.03.2024 passed by this Court in WPSB No.68 of 2023 (Chinkal Choudhary vs. State & another) and two other petitions which were decided together by this Court directing the respondents to consider and recommend the petitioner in the order of their merit under the category of Differently-abled Persons.

5. Following the said ratio, to which learned counsel for the parties have also agreed, the present petition is also allowed in terms of aforesaid judgment dated 19.03.2024. The respondent-Commission is directed to proceed with the selection process and the result in respect of 04 posts for the mains examination under the category of “Differently-abled Persons” is directed to be declared immediately but not later than 15 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

6. No order as to costs.