This single-judge bench dismissed the writ petition invoking L.P.A No. 308 of 2015. The court held that no case for interference is made out regarding the petitioner's appointment eligibility based on disability categories under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995. NoSeparate disposition order
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No.6563 OF 2010
Binita Kumri,Daughter of Sohan Baraik resident of village-Gotara Kumhartoli,P.O and P.S Simdega, Dist. Simdega. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Chairman, Jharkhand Public Service Commission,Circular Road P.O and P.S Lalpur Dist.Ranchi.
3 Secretary,Department of Personnel an Administrative Reforms,Project Building Dhurwa,Ranchi.
4.Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission,Circular Road P.O and P.S Lalpur Dist.Ranchi.
….. Respondents
-----
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner: Mr. A.N.Deo Adv.
For the State :- Mr.Anup Agarwal A.C to G.A V For the JPSC :- Mr. Sanjay Piprawall Adv.
22nd Order No.3 : Dated July, 2019
Heard Mr. A.N.Deo learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Anup Agarwal A.C to G.A V for the State and Mr. Sanjay Piprawall learned counsel for the JPSC.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for direction upon the concerned respondents to appoint the petitioner in the Jharkhand Administrative Service in the quota of Handicapped as per the result published by Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi.
The case of the petitioner is that the respondent invited application for the eligible candidates to be considered for appointment in the Administrative Service in Third Combined Civil Services Competition (Preliminary Examination) 2008. As per Clause-3 of the Advertisement 1(ka), the persons, who is having hearing of disability, were not found fit to be considered for appointment to the post advertised, therefore, the reservation for the physically
-2-
handicapped persons was confined to the blind/low vision to the persons suffering from the disability of blindness vision and locomotive disabilities. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when a person, who is having of low vision and is suffering from hearing disability, is not appointed and as such the petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment on the ground of physically handicapped as the petitioner is suffering from locomotive disability.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the J.P.S.C states that as per section 33 of the Persons With Disabilities(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1955 and in view of the circular of the Government Roaster it is clear that if the post is 33 then one post will be reserved for blindness/low vision person, if the vacancy is 67 then one post will be reserved for the person who is having hearing disability and if it is 100 then one post will go to the locomotive disability. Mr. Sanjay Piprawall invited the attention of this court to the advertisement wherein vacancy position has been provided. He submits that vacancy position of Schedule Caste category is 45 and as such one post has been reserved for the person having blindness/low vision. He further submits that issue in question has been set at rest in L.P.A No. 308 of 2015 where in it is held that last appointment candidate inspite of the vacancies on account of non-joining of some of the candidates is not arbitrary and the ground taken by the petitioner for his appointment cannot be said to be founded on any legal right which can be enforced by the petitioner. It is when some of the appointed candidates did not join, the petitioner knocked the door of the writ court seeking appointment on the basis of non-joining of appointed candidates.
In view of the order passed by the division Bench of this court in L.P.A No. 308 of 2015 and looking to the circular which has been brought on record by the
-3-
Jharkhand Public Service Commission, no case of interference is made out with the writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SD/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to appointment as a Handicapped quota candidate when the reservation was confined to blindness/low vision and locomotive disabilities based on vacancy percentages.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
L.P.A No. 308 of 2015Followed¶21
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Binita Kumri
State of Jharkhand
Chairman, Jharkhand Public Service Commission
Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
