Persons with benchmark disabilities (PwBD) are recognized as socially backward and are entitled to the same benefits and relaxations in selection processes as SC/ST candidates, requiring horizontal reservation to be applied harmoniously with vertical reservation.

O R D E R

Per: Mr. Diwakar Singh, Member (J)

Heard Ld. Counsel on both the sides.

2. The applicant has filed this Original Application seeking the following relief(s):

“(a) To quash and set aside the speaking order contained in Letter No. RRC/ER/OA/350/401/2023 dated 05.06.2023 passed by the Chairperson/ER (Respondent No.3) whereby and whereunder the claim of the applicant pursuant to the order passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal dated 30.03.2023 in O.A. No.350/401 of 2023 has been rejected.

(b) To direct the respondents to appointment the applicant on the post of Level-1 Post pursuant to the advertisement, being Centralised Employment Notice (CEN) NO. RRC-01/2019, dated 23.02.2019 under Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) category.

(c) To hold and declare that since the applicant has scored 38.06392 marks and the last cut off for OBC, SC and ST are 30.01352, 30.00658 and 30.45988 respectively, the applicant has indefeasible right to be appointed in view of the judgement in the case of Anamol Bhandari (supra), as approved in Aryan Raj (supra) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and followed by Hon'ble Telangana High Court in the case Sanjeeva Reddy (supra).

(d) For any other appropriate relief or reliefs to which the applicant is found to be entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case as also to do conscionable justice to the applicant.;”

FACTS OF THE CASE

3. The applicant, a person with benchmark disability (Locomotor Disability – 60%), had applied pursuant to Centralised Employment Notice (CEN) No. RRC-01/2019 dated 23.02.2019 (Annexure A/5) issued by the Railway Recruitment Cell, Eastern Railway, for Level-1 posts.

3.1. The applicant had also claimed his status as Course Completed Act Apprentice (CCAA), having undergone apprenticeship training from 09.08.2010 to 08.08.2013. A corrigendum dated 22.04.2022 (Annexure A/6) introduced weightage of one-third NCVT marks for CCAA candidates and exempted them from the Physical Efficiency Test.

3.2. The applicant then appeared in the Computer Based Test held on 22.09.2022. His normalized score was 18.45303. Upon addition of weightage marks as CCAA candidate, his final score stood at 38.06392.

3.3. However, the cut-off marks for CCAA candidates under different categories, as notified on 14.02.2023 (Annexure A/13), were: UR - 40.16915; OBC - 30.01352; SC - 30.00658; ST - 30.45988. The applicant was not called for document verification. Aggrieved, he submitted representations dated 08.02.2023 and 06.03.2023 (Annexure A/14).

3.4. Upon non-consideration of the said representations, the applicant approached this Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation in O.A. No. 350/401/2023 which was disposed of by this Tribunal on 30.03.2023 (Annexure A/15) directing consideration of his representations.

3.5. Pursuant thereto, the claim of the applicant was rejected by the respondents, vide speaking order dated 05.06.2023 (Annexure A/17), on the ground that he did not secure marks up to the cut-off either under PwBD or UR category and that the benefit of horizontal reservation could be extended only under one category. The present O.A. challenges the said speaking order.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT

4. The applicant has contended that he secured 38.06392 marks, which is higher than the cut-off marks prescribed for OBC, SC and ST categories under CCAA. According to him, PwBD candidates are entitled to relaxation of 2% in qualifying marks and, therefore, his score exceeds the minimum qualifying threshold.

4.1. At hearing, Ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC categories have been granted the benefit of vertical res