Judgment On Board

1) The facts of the cases at hand are that an advertisement was issued by Directorate of Public Instructions on 9.3.2019 for appointment against various vacant posts of Lecturer, Teacher and Assistant Teacher of various disciplines in ‘E’ and ‘T’ cadres. Petitioners who belong to Other Backward Classes (OBC) category submitted their applications for appointment to the posts of Lecturer (Biology), Teacher (Maths) and Assistant Teacher (Science) in ‘E’ and ‘T’ cadres ; they participated in the examination and found place in merit. The selection committee issued provisional merit list wherein more than 7% seats have been allotted to physically handicapped candidates in the OBC category which has affected the rights of the petitioners.

Particulars of posts advertised under OBC category and physically handicapped candidates appointed against those posts are as under :-

2) Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that total 200 posts of Lecturer (Biology) in E-cadre were advertised and 7% posts i.e. 14 posts were reserved for physically handicapped candidates but the selection committee offered appointment to six physically handicapped persons in OBC category on the basis of their respective positions in the merit list which is higher than 7% and similar analogy has been applied by the respondent authorities with regard to appointment to the posts of Lecturer (Biology) (T-cadre), Teacher (Math) and Assistant Teacher (Science). He further submits that petitioners are meritorious to the handicapped candidates selected against the posts reserved for OBC category and in the reply, State has admitted that physically handicapped candidates were considered for appointment on the basis of their position in merit list. He contends that procedure followed by the selection committee is in contravention to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Indra Sawhney and Others Versus Union of India and Others¹1. 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 and the physically handicapped candidates should be placed in their respective categories. He further contends that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of petitioners and redraw the merit list strictly in accordance with the Indra Sawhney (supra) judgment.

3) On the other hand, Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, learned State counsel submits that the selected candidates who belong to physically handicapped (PH) category secured position in the merit list therefore their names were considered for appointment irrespective of their category according to the circular dated 29.8.2018.

4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection.

5) State Government has extended the reservation to the physically handicapped persons vide circular dated 27.9.2014 (Annexure R/1) which specifically states that such reservation should be horizontal and compartment wise. Subsequently, another circular was issued on 29.8.2018 and its para 3(ii) states that reservation shall be horizontal.

6) In the advertisement dated 9.3.2019, total 200 posts of Lecturer (Biology) (E-cadre) were advertised wherein 28 posts were supposed to be filled by candidates belong to OBC category (vertical reservation) and 14 posts were supposed to be filled by physically handicapped persons (horizontal reservation) but respondent authorities offered appointment to six physically handicapped persons against the OBC category itself on the ground that they belong to OBC category and secured position in merit list. Similar analogy has been applied by the respondent authorities