Petition 571/2014. The controversy there, he points out, was similar to that which has arisen in the present case. In that case, too, the Division Bench of this Court directed the Expert Committee to again consider the issue of identification of posts, albeit under the 1995 PWD Act, as suitable for being filled in by blind candidates. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the Expert Committee convened on 9 February 2015. It did not identify any post as suitable only for candidates suffering from LV. The respondents’ contention that certain posts were only for being filled by persons suffering from LV but not by persons who were completely blind is, therefore, contrary to the DEPWD OM dated 4 March 2015. He, further, points out that in fact, the posts of Assistant Locoshed (Diesel) (Mechanical), Assistant Locoshed (Electrical), Assistant Operations (Electrical) and Assistant TL and AC (Electrical), which had been notified in Annexure A to the CEN as being suitable for candidates suffering from LV but not for the candidates who are completely blind, had been identified in the OM dated 4 March 2015 as suitable for any category of visual impairment. Similarly, while the OM dated 4 March 2015 identified the posts of Assistant Depot (Stores) as suitable posts for blind and LV candidates, Annexure A to the CEN identified it only as suitable for LV candidates. Thus, there was no basis for the identification of posts as undertaken in Annexure A to the CEN.
