The court ruled that the appointment process was illegal due to the acceptance of an invalid handicap certificate, thus favoring the rightful applicant.

ORDER

(Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

Shri M K Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Vidyapati Tripathi and Shri Rajesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents, are present.

2. The instant original application has been filed seeking following relief:

“(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 13-03-2018 (Annexure A-1 to Compilation No 1) passed by Respondent No. 3.

(ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to cancel the order of appointment issued to Respondent No 5 and appointment order for the post of durwan be issued in favour of applicant and appointed against the post in place of Respondent No. 5.

(iii) To issue another writ, order or direction in favor of the applicant as deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(iv) Award the cost of application in favor of the applicant.”

3. A compendium of the facts narrated in the OA is that the applicant has alleged that the respondents have illegally appointed one person on the vacancy advertised by them and had there not been that illegal appointment, the applicant would have secured that appointment. Applicant has contended that the person who has been illegally appointed by the respondents under prescribed PH category was given undue favour by the respondents’ department as he was asked to re-submit his PH certificate even after the expiry of the prescribed period within which the application forms were supposed to be filed. Furthermore, the applicant has also contended that even after the expiry of the prescribed period within which the applications were supposed to be received, the PH disability form which was submitted by that illegally appointed person was fake and bogus as the same was not issued by the competent medical authority. Applicant has alleged that had the aforesaid illegal exercise not been committed on the part of the respondents’ department, the vacancy on which that illegally appointed person is working for so many years now, would have been secured by the applicant himself. Respondents on the other hand have contended that no illegality took place in the process of appointment and the same was carried out in absolute accordance with the extant rules and provisions as were stipulated in the advertisement. By way of the instant original application, that applicant has sought quashing of the order dated 13.03.2018 through which the respondents have rejected the representation of the applicant wherein prayer was made to consider him for appointment. Prayer has also been made by the applicant to direct the respondents to cancel the appointment of the respondent no 5 and appointment order for the post of Durwan be issued to the applicant instead.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that an advertisement was issued in Employment News of 17-23 December 2011 for the post of Durwan in Ordnance Equipment Factory, Kanpur. Specific stipulation was made in the advertisement that only PH Orthopedically Handicapped (One Arm Affected) candidates can apply. The candidates were required to send their application within 21 days from the date of publication of the advertisement in the newspaper. It was further argued that the applicant applied for the aforesaid post annexing therewith his physically handicapped certificate which shows “only one arm affected”. It was next argued that in physical test as well as the written test, the applican