Reserved Judgment

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition No. 1221 of 2022 (S/S)

Meera Papnai and Others ….....Petitioners

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Others ….….Respondents

Present:-

Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Narayan Dutt, Standing Counsel for the State.

Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Public Service

Commission.

JUDGMENT

Per: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

The challenge in this petition is made to the Final Result

dated 31.05.2022, published by the respondent no.3/Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (“the Commission”) on the ground that it violates the provisions of Section 34(2) of the Rights of Persons with

Disabilities Act, 2016 (“the Act”).

2. It is the case of the petitioners that the Commission issued an advertisement on 25.09.2018, for holding Uttarakhand Special Subordinate Education (Lecturer Cadre-Group ‘C’) Service (General and Woman Branch) Examination-2018 for selection of Lecturers in various subjects including 93 vacancies of Lecturer (English)(General Branch). The positions advertised for Lecturer (English)(General Branch) were also earmarked for persons with disabilities (“PwD”) specifically One Arm (OA), One Leg (OL), Blind (B), Partially Blind (PB). The final result for 2018 advertisement was issued on 25.06.2019, but five vacancies of Lecturers (English) (General Branch) earmarked for PwD (3-General, 01-OBC and 01-ST) were carried forward. In the next advertisement issued on 12.10.2020, the Commission also advertised vacancies for Lecturer (English)(General Branch) and also included the vacancies carried forward for PwD. They were 01-PB for Scheduled Tribes, 01-PB for Other Backward Classes, and 03-PB for open category. All the petitioners applied for the post of

Lecturer English (General Branch). All the petitioners are PwDs. The category. The result pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.10.2020, was declared on 31.05.2022, but five vacancies of PwD were again carried forward for the previous recruitment year, which is against the provision of Section 34(2) of the Act.

3. This matter was heard with a bunch of petitions and the judgment was reserved. But this Court, on 06.08.2025, observed that the facts of the instant case are slightly different than the connected matters. Therefore, the judgment was not passed, and parties were further heard. It is, thereafter, supplementary affidavit was filed by the petitioners.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that while preparing the Final Result dated 31.05.2022, the provisions of Section 34(2) of the Act have been violated. He further submits that the issue has already been decided by this Court on 06.08.2025 in WPSS No.1291 of 2022, Yogendra Kumar Shah and Another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others (“the first petition”) and connected matters, wherein, this Court has observed that the final merit list should be prepared pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.10.2020, in accordance with the provisions of Section 34(2) of the Act.

6. Learned counsel for the Commission submits that the Commission prepared the merit list as per the requisition received by them.

7. Learned State Counsel submits that the merit list has been prepared by the Commission.

8. In fact, the instant petition was connected with the first petition. The first petition and connected matters have already been decided on 06.08.2025. The judgment is Annexure No.1 to the Supplementary Affidavit filed by the petitioners. In the instant case, it is apparent that twice the vacancies earmarked for PwD have been carried forward, which is in violation of Section 34(2) of the Act. In identical issue, in the first petition, this Court has, while allowing the writ petition, directed the Commission to prepare a final merit list according to the provisions as contained in Section 34(2) of the Act.

9. As stated, the controversy is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court dated 06.08.2025, pass