Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Sinam Kalpana Devi & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Manipur & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 52 of 2017
Decided On : 24-02-2022
PWD Category - Recruitment Process - Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - Section 33 - Summary: The court addressed the failure to provide the mandatory three per cent quota for PWD category in the recruitment process for staff nurses, as required by the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995. The court found that the petitioners, who belonged to the PWD category, were genuine candidates and were eligible for appointment as staff nurses under the PWD category. The court set aside the impugned selection list and directed the official respondents to prepare a revised selection list including the names of the petitioners under the PWD category and appoint them as staff nurses in the two vacant posts.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners applied for recruitment to staff nurse positions under the PWD category. The Department failed to provide the mandatory three per cent quota for PWD category, leading to the petitioners being denied employment. The petitioners challenged the recruitment process, alleging inconsistencies and contravention of the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners, as genuine candidates under the PWD category, were eligible for appointment as staff nurses and were unjustly left out of the impugned selection list. The court also noted the obligation of the government to protect the rights of disabled persons and emphasized the importance of employment for the empowerment and inclusion of people with disabilities.
Issues: The main issue was the failure to provide the mandatory three per cent quota for PWD category in the recruitment process for staff nurses, as required by the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners, as genuine candidates under the PWD category, were eligible for appointment as staff nurses and were unjustly left out of the impugned selection list. The court emphasized the obligation of the government to protect the rights of disabled persons and the importance of employment for the empowerment and inclusion of people with disabilities.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the impugned selection list was set aside, and the official respondents were directed to prepare a revised selection list including the names of the petitioners under the PWD category and appoint them as staff nurses in the two vacant posts. The said exercise was directed to be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the court's order.
JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners to quash the impugned selection list dated 20.12.2016 and to direct the respondents to prepare another selection list after providing three per cent quota amounting to 5 posts under Persons with Disability (PWD) category as contemplated under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short, 'the said Act').
2. Heard Mr.S.Rajeetchandra, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr.Ibotombi, learned senior counsel for the private respondent No.3 and Mr. HS Paonam, leaernd senior counsel for the respondent No. 4. Heard also Mr.H.Debendra, learned Government Advocate for the respondent State.
3. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioners is as follows:
On 5.5.2016, the Directorate of Health Services, Government of Manipur, called for applications from intending candidates for recruitment to various posts in the Department. Amongst the posts, 163 vacant posts of staff nurse were indicated. The petitioners having requisite qualification have applied under PWD category along with relevant documents. The Employment Exchange, vide letter dated 30.5.2016, forwarded five names, including the petitioners names under PWD category.
3.1. Earlier, the petitioners' names were left out in the tentative list of short listed candidates due to the mistake on the part of the concerned Department. Whereupon, based on the representation of the second petitioner dated 24.10.2016, the Department published a correct final list of candidates, wherein the first petitioner was listed at Serial No.843 and the second petitioner was listed at Serial No.847. Upon the viva-voce held on 19.11.2016, the Department had published the list of selected candidates numbering 162 and another 21 names as wait listed candidates on 20.12.2016 for appointment to the post of staff nurses.
3.2. According to the petitioners, the recruitment process is fraught with inconsistencies and in contravention of the provisions of the said Act. As per the provisions of the said Act, 5 posts out of the advertised 163 posts of staff nurses should have been reserved for PWD, whereas in the impugned selection list, only 2 persons were marked PWD and are shown selected under the general category i.e. 81 posts unreserved categories making it very clear that the Department has not followed three per cent reservation policy as contemplated by the said Act.
3.3. According to the petitioners, pursuant to the advertisement dated 5.5.2016 and 10.5.2016, 5 persons were sponsored by the Special Employment Exchange for Physically Handicapped Persons, Employment Exchange Complex, Lamphelpat, Imphal vide letter dated 30.5.2016. Surprisingly, the selected candidate namely Konthoujam Yaiphabi Devi, appearing at Serial No.55 shown selected under the GEN (PWD) has not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange and her name does not feature in the list submitted by the Employment Exchange under PWD category. The petitioners had been denied appointment to the post of staff nurse due to non-reservation of three per cent, which is calculated to 5 posts out of 163 posts and the same ought to have been reserved under the provision of the said Act. Hence, the writ petition.
4. The official respondents 1 and 2 filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that though the petitioners raised serious allegation against one of the selected candidates, she has not been made as party in this writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. It is stated that the Employment Exchange forwarded 5 names of the candidates for PWD. However, the name of the candidates shown or otherwise appeared at Serial No.5 has already been cancelled by the Employment Exchange itself. The authorities have notified the number of posts to be filled up for the post of staff nurses was 163, out of which 1 post of staff nurse was kept unfilled/reserved for a candidate belon
AI
The central legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the government to provide the mandatory three per cent quota for PWD category in recruitment processes, as required by the Per....
While statutory provisions mandate filling unfilled reserved disability vacancies through interchange, the process remains strictly subject to merit-based selection criteria. Candidates cannot establ....
Point of Law : As per Section 32 of the Act of 1995, the appropriate Government, which in this case is the State Government of Assam, is required to inter-alia identify posts in every establishment t....
Separate merit-based filling of disability quota backlog posts valid without batch-wise; participation estops post-non-selection challenge; no prejudice as competitive within category.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
