An applicant for public employment cannot claim appointment solely on the basis of administrative lapses in roster maintenance if such appointment would displace a more meritorious candidate within the eligible disability categories, as administrative errors do not confer enforceable legal rights to appointment.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :

In the present Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

“A. Allow and admit the present application.

B. Direct the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to follow the guidelines / rules of OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO. 36035/02/2017-ESTT (RES), GOVERNMENT OF INDIA dated 15.01.2018 pertaining to the reservation to candidates of PWD category and increase one more vacancy pertaining to the PGT English PWD category by preparing the fresh roaster and set aside the selection process of the PWD candidates done without maintaining the roaster as per the 7.1 of the guidelines / rules of OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO. 36035/02/2017-ESTT (RES), GOVERNMENT OF INDIA dated 15.01.2018 and did not act according to 7.8 of the aforesaid guidelines,

(c) direct the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to appoint the petitioner on the post of PGT English after considering the case of the petitioner on merits after maintaining the roaster as per the basis of the nature of the post, level of representation of the specific disabled category in concerned grade/post etc.

(d) Pass any such further orders, as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interests of justice.”

2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted as under:

2.1. The applicant, a 45% Orthopedically Disabled (OH) candidate, applied for the post of PGT English pursuant to Advertisement No. 14 issued by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and secured 60.77 marks in the written examination and interview.

2.2. Learned counsel contended that although the total number of vacancies for the said post was subsequently revised from 55 to 71, the respondents failed to correspondingly increase the number of vacancies reserved for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PWD) in accordance with the Office Memorandum No. 36035/02/2017-Estt(Res) dated 15.01.2018 issued by the Government of India and further failed to prepare and maintain the mandatory roster for PWD candidates as required under the said guidelines. Learned counsel further contended that due to this non-compliance and improper implementation of the reservation policy, only one vacancy for the OH category was filled, whereas three vacancies were required to be reserved for PWD candidates, thereby depriving the applicant of fair consideration for appointment.

2.3. Concluding the arguments, learned counsel submitted that the selection process conducted without maintaining the prescribed roster and in violation of the aforesaid Office Memorandum is illegal and arbitrary, and, therefore, the present Original Application has been filed seeking preparation of a proper roster, revision of PWD vacancies, and consideration of the applicant for appointment to the post of PGT English in accordance with law.

2.4. In the written submission filed on behalf of the applicant it is further submitted that the respondents themselves have admitted, in their replies and communications, that three vacancies for PwD candidates were required as per the applicable rules and guidelines. It is contended that the mandatory roster for PwD candidates was never prepared, which has also been confirmed through RTI replies, thereby rendering the entire selection process for PwD candidates arbitrary and contrary to the guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel & Training. It is also submitted that in the absence of a valid roster, the suitability of candidates must be assessed based on the functional requirements of the post, and in that regard the applicant, being an Orthopedically Handicapped candidate, is more suitable for the teaching post of PGT English. It is also stated that the respondents cannot compensate or adjust reservation of one recruitment cycle with another advertisement, as each recruitment must independently comply with the statutory reservation policy. Reliance has also been placed on judicial observations highlighting repeated violations