2018 Supreme(Tri) 146
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
Sri Prabir Datta, son of Batu Krishna Datta - Appellant
Versus
The State of Tripura, represented by its Secretary cum Commissioner, Department of General Administration (P & T) and Others - Respondent
W.P.(C) No.822 of 2017
Decided on : 11-06-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. A. Bhaumik, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. N. Choudhury, G.A. Mr. P. Datta, Adv. Mr. T. Debbarma, Adv.
The court emphasized the importance of upholding the reservation for physically challenged categories as per Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, and directed the Tripura Public Service Commission to proceed with the selection process for the reserved category without prejudice.
Headnote:
Persons with Disabilities - Tripura Civil Services Grade-II - Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - 4-cycle roaster [100 point]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a person with low vision, was excluded from participating in the selection process for Tripura Civil Services Grade-II due to the reduction of reserved vacancies for the physically challenged categories.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reduction of reserved vacancies was erroneous and quashed the addendum and related decisions. It directed the Tripura Public Service Commission to segregate the 3% reserved category, issue a fresh requisition, and proceed with the selection process without prejudice to the candidates from the reserved category.
Issues: Exclusion of the petitioner from the selection process, reduction of reserved vacancies, and the validity of the addendum and related decisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the reduction of reserved vacancies was erroneous and directed the Tripura Public Service Commission to proceed with the selection process for the reserved category without prejudice.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed to the extent indicated, and the court directed the Tripura Public Service Commission to proceed with the selection process for the reserved category without prejudice.
1. Heard Mr. A. Bhaumik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. N. Choudhury, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents No.1 & 2 and Mr. P. Datta & Mr. T. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the Tripura Public Service Commission, the respondent No.3 herein.
2. The facts are mostly admitted by the parties, save and except allotment of vacancies for the physically challenged categories in terms of 4-cycle roaster [100 point]. It is also admitted that under proviso to Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, the Government of Tripura having considered the nature of work has excluded the hearing- impaired persons from appointment from the posts under Tripura Civil Services Grade-II. Only the persons with blindness or low vision and locomotor disability or cerebral palsy are eligible for selection in those posts. On requisition of the respondent No.1, Tripura Public Service Commission, the respondent No.3 published the advertisement No.04/2016 [Annexure-1 to the writ petition] for selection against 13 vacant posts under Tripura Civil Services Grade-II. Out of which two posts for Locomotor and low vision categories were reserved. But, subsequently by the addendum to the said Advertisement under No.04/2016 dated 30.04.2016 which was issued on 03.07.2017 [Annexure-5 to the writ petition], those two reserved vacancies were reduced to one for the person having the locomotor disability. Thus, the petitioner being from low-vision category was excluded, thereby from participating in the process. Being aggrieved, he has filed this writ petition.
3. Mr. A. Bhaumik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that from the affidavit filed by the Department of General Administration (P & T), Government of Tripura in response to the order dated 07.02.2017 as passed by this court, it would be apparent that in the said cadre the following points in the 4-cycle 100 Point Roster were available for the physically challenged persons:
Cycle/ Roster Point No. & Category
Reserved for
Date of identification of PH for TCS
Man in position & date
Remarks
1/54-ST
PH-Hearing Impairment
16.11.12
Vacant
PH-Hearing impairment is not identified post of TCS
2/64-ST
PH-locomotor disability or cerebral palsy
16.11.12
Vacant
Identified post
3/25-UR
PH-Blindness or low vision
16.11.12
Vacant
Identified post
According to Mr. Bhaumik, learned counsel there were three clear vacancies available for the physically challenged person under 30% reservation category.
4. There is no dispute that one person from the Locomotor disability has already been accommodated against the point No.1/32. Mr. Bhaumik, learned counsel has not referred to that point and as such there is no issue over the point. From the inspection of 100 Point Roster it appears that though the total cadre strength is 240, but only 168 posts/vacancies are to be filled by direct recruitment keeping the remainder to be filled up by promotion. As such the roster point would be verified up to 168. It appears that such verification has been done on 24.05.2017. From the column No.9 it appears that Point No.54, 25 and 164 in their respective cycle were available since the Roster Point was verified upto 168. The point No.54 and 164 were clearly available for 30% reservation, to be filled up by the physically challenged persons. Hence, the claim that the three vacancies were available is not sustainable. The total vacancy would be two in the present exercise.
5. Both Mr. Choudhury, learned G.A. and Mr. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have acceded to the said statement and as such it has clearly surfaced that the addendum that was issued by the respondent No.3 on 03.07.2017 [Annex