ORDER

By Hon’ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A) Learned counsel for the applicant stated that in response to advertisement notification No. 3 of 2012, 6 of 2013 and 5 of 2013 for filling up the posts of Teachers in various Districts of Kashmir valley, the applicant had applied both in open as well as in the handicapped category for the reason of having Visual Handicap.

2. After scrutiny, the applicant was called for a written test held on 14.9.2013 and her name was shown amongst the candidates, who were declared to have qualified the written test. The applicant was shown to have been considered in the category of Physically Disabled in the category of Vision, whereas the name of the private respondent No. 4 figured at Sl. No. 2 and name of private respondent 5 did not figure in the above quoted list. The above shortlist was followed by another revised list of the candidates who were shown to have been qualified for the interview in their respective districts for the post of Teacher and the name of the applicant figured at Sl.No.219 whereas the name of private respondent No. 4 and 5 figured at Sl. No. 2 and 274.

3. Thereafter, a select list for the post of Teacher for the District Cadre Shopian got published showing private respondent No. 4 and 5 having been selected under handicapped category at Sl. Nos. 12 and 36 by allocating them 49.0150 points and 55.9606 points with a rider that the recommendation of appointment shall be subject to production of certificate of Handicap subject to the verification of its genuineness. Name of the applicant was omitted from the said selection list.

4. The applicant moved representations dated 30.6.2014 and 7.8.2014 for redressal of her grievance for getting her adjusted against the post in place of the candidate who have obtained lesser points as compared to her and the said representations were received by the authorities under receipt No. 6215 dated 30.6.2014 and 10194 dated 7.8.2014.

5. The main grievance of the applicant is that her genuine claim was not redressed by the respondents despite written as well as verbal requests and no response was given to her representations by the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant further stated that private respondent No. 5 has not opted to join till date for want of handicapped category certificate. It is also stated that private respondent No. 4 has also failed to produce handicapped category certificate. Thus, both the posts have still remained unfilled against which the applicant has genuine claim to be accommodated.

7. On the contrary, in the counter reply, learned counsel for respondents has stated that factum of the whole issue is the credence of particulars not filed by the applicant in the OMR. It is further submitted that looking at the protracted and multifarious litigation on the issue of OMR application form, the Board in its 73rd meeting dated 27.1.2011 chaired by the then Chairman Mr. B.D. Bhagat took a policy decision on the subject matter and the same has been followed in all the selections thereon. The operative record note of the decision of the aforementioned meeting is reproduced as under:-

i. If the candidate has not marked the relevant field of OMR application form, the same is liable to be rejected.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has also filed a written submission in which it is stated that the applicant had inadvertently omitted to mention the physically disabled category in the OMR application on account of which the application of the applicant under physically challenged category has not been considered. It is further stated that one candidate namely Abida Yousuf has been selected under RBA category/ handicapped who had obtained 49.018 points. Further, private respondents Abida Yousuf and Syed Mudasir Jan have not succeeded in submitting the requisite certificates on account of