Petitioners challenged non-reservation of posts for physically disabled candidates in the Patwari recruitment. The Court examined a State Government exemption notification under Section 33 of the 1995 Act and dismissed the writ petition.
Writ petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 3066 of 2014
1. Devbharat Sahu And Anr. S/o Chironji Lal Sahu Aged About 27 YearsR/o Kolihamar,Post Gurur, Distt. Balod C.G. , Chhattisgarh
2. Lukesh Sahu S/o Shri Bisnath Sahu Aged About 20 YearsR/o Koliharmar, Post Gurur,Distt. Balod C.G. , District : Balod, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors S/o Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Managenent, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Thana Naya Raipur, Secretariat Maha Nadi Bhawan, Raipur C.G., Chhattisgarh
2. The Collector Balod P.S. Tahsil And Distt. Balod C.G., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh
3. The Director, Land Records Chhattisgarh Government Raipur C.G. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
(Cause-title is taken from Case Information System)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners : Mr. B. P. Singh, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Ms. Nupoor Sonkar, P. L. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board
12.07.2024
1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief(s):-
10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities not to finally provide appointment for the post of patwari during the pendency of this writ petition.
10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to make arrangement 6% posts for the disablement in this selection process and thereafter, final select list and appointment be made.
10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records relating to the post of Patwari.
10.4 Any other relief/ relief’s which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be allowed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that an advertisement was issued
on 21.02.2014 for the posts of Patwari in Balod District. He further submitted
2
that though the posts were reserved for various categories such as OBC, SC and ST, no seat was reserved for physically disabled candidates. He also submitted that the petitioners submitted their application as physically disabled candidates but they were not selected as no posts were reserved. He further contended that the authority concerned ought to have reserved some posts for physically disabled candidates according to the provisions of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 . He also contended that six per cent of posts should have been reserved for persons with disabilities. He referred to the judgment passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Shree Deo Dwivedi Versus Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission & Ors., W. P.(S) No. 97 of 2010 .
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State would oppose. She submitted that the proviso attached to Section 33 of The Act, 1995 says that every appropriate Government looking to the nature of work, by a notification subject to such conditions exempt any establishment from the provisions of this Section. She further submitted that a notification was issued by the State Government exercising the power conferred upon it under Section 33 of The Act, 1995 and posts of Patwari were exempted from the provisions of Section 33 of The Act, 1995. She also submitted that as the notification was issued by the State Government, no posts were reserved for persons with disabilities.
4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record.
5. Section 33 of The Act, 1995 reads as under:-
33. Reservation of posts. Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less than three per cent for persons or class of
3
persons with disability of which one per cent each shall be reserved for persons suffering from-
in the posts identified for each disability:
Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any department or establishment, by notification subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section.
From a bare reading of the proviso appended to Section 33, it is quite vivid that the appropriate Government looking to the nature of work, by a notification subject to such conditions exempt any establishment from the provisions of this Section. In the present case, the State Government has already issued a notification concerning the posts of Patwari.
6. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and further, the notification issued by the State Government (Annexure R/2), in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference.
7. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed . No costs.
Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge
Ajinkya
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the State Government can exempt posts of Patwari from mandatory 6% reservation for persons with disabilities under Section 33 proviso of 1995 Act.
Whether the High Court can direct appointment of candidates for Patwari posts during pendency of writ petition when exemption notification exists.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shree Deo Dwivedi Versus Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission & Ors.Referred¶24
Shree Deo Dwivedi Versus Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission & Ors., W. P.(S) No. 97 of 2010
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Devbharat Sahu
Lukesh Sahu
State Of Chhattisgarh
Rakesh Mohan Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
