Allowed

Melap Hagavaniya v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC29 Nov 2018CW/11891/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, on counsel's submission that the issue is covered by Mohammed Farhan v. State of Rajasthan, disposed of the petition by applying the directions given in that judgment regarding reservation for persons with disabilities and inter-change of categories under Section 33 and 36 of the Act of 1995.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of in light of Mohammed Farhan; respondents directed to determine vacancies and fill seats by inter-changing categories among physically handicapped persons within three months.

Melap Hagavaniya Vs State and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 11891/2017

¶3

Melap Hagavaniya S/o Khushal Singh Hagavaniya, R/o Village And Post Dungra Bada, Tehsil Sajjangarh, District Banswara Raj..

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶7

The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶8

Zila Parishad, Banswara, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Banswara.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Civil Writ No. 14877/2017

¶12

Khatoon D/o Bhiku Khan, R/o Roshni Ghar Chouraha, Kamla Colony, Bikaner Raj..

¶13

----Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

The State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶16

The Director, Primary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶17

Zila Parishad, Bikaner Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Bikaner.

¶18

----Respondents

¶19

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.S. Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh for Mr. S.S. Ladrecha

¶20

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order

¶21

29/11/2018

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the

¶23

(2 of 3)

¶24

judgment in the case of Mohammed Farhan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B.C.W.P. No. 11382/2017, decided on 08.01.2018 and, therefore, the writ petition may be decided in light of the said judgment.

¶25

Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to dispute the said fact that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by judgment in the case of Mohammed Farhan (supra).

¶26

In view of the submissions made, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is also disposed of in light of and with similar direction as given in the case of Mohammed Farhan (supura), wherein, it has been directed as under:-

¶27

“12. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the mandate laid down in Section 36 of the Act of 1995 is conclusive and each precedent law requires the respondent to operate the clear mandate given in Section 33 and 36. Thus, the respondents are directed that the persons of Blindness / Low Vision, Hearing Impairment and Locomotive disability or Cerebral palsy shall be appropriately considered in the 3% seats reserved for them in their own category and in case, such post remained unfilled in the similar recruitment in 2012 then Section 36 shall be operated and respondents shall fill the carried forward seats by inter-changing the candidates of these three disabilities mentioned in Section 33 of the Act of 1995. The respondents shall be required to do the following :-

¶28

A. Determine the total vacancies of physically handicapped which are 3% in the recruitment of 2012 and give the exact details of the reservation implemented in 2012 in the sub-categories mentioned in Section 33 of the Act of 1995.

¶29

B. Whatever seats of disabled persons due to nonavailability of respective category of candidates from 2012 which were not filled by their respective categories, the same number of seats shall be filled in 2013, by the respondents by inter-changing the respective categories in the spirit of Section 36 of the Act of 1995.

¶30

Further, the 2013 physically handicapped candidates shall be given appointment in their respective categories as per the Section 33 but if the seats remained unfilled in the

¶31

(3 of 3)

¶32

2012 recruitment then the inter-change shall be permissible for the respondents to make the necessary recruitment to the same number of seats unfilled in accordance with Section 36 of the Act of 1995 in 2013 recruitment. The respondents shall be required to demarcate exact number of seats @ 3% of the total number of seats which are recruited and are being recruited for the year 2012 and 2013 and take the decision strictly in terms of Section 33 and 36. It is further made clear that the respondents shall be required to give effect to the legislative intentions in the Section 36 of the Act of 1995 and permit inter-change amongst the physically handicapped candidates. In case, the particular category of physical handicapped persons is not available and in case the same was also not available in the previous recruitment year on account of the particular physical handicap person being not available then such inter-change between the physically handicapped persons shall be legally determined and implemented by the respondents within a period of 3 moths from today for the recruitment year 2013.

¶33

On the aforesaid consideration, if seats of physically handicapped persons are found vacant for the year 2013 which could not be filled by their respective categories in 2012, then the petitioners shall be given appointment appropriately in accordance with their merit by giving effect to the inter-change amongst the physically handicapped persons.

¶34

The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.”

¶35

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶36

194-AK Chouhan/-

Melap Hagavaniya v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Melap Hagavaniya v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jugal Kishore Sharma Vs State and Ors.

Sukh Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S. Derby Textiles Ltd. Vs Appe. Authority for I.F.R. and Ors.

Sukhadeva Ram and Ors. Vs Naveen Mahajan and Ors.

Neha Ojha Vs the Director General of Police

Anita Kala Vs State of Rajasthan