Disposed

Jesa Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC20 Apr 2018CW/5574/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The bench disposed of the writ petition by following the ruling in Mohammed Farhan, directing the respondents to implement reservation rules for physically handicapped persons under Sections 33 and 36 of the relevant Act.

What did the court decide?

Disposition of the writ petition by following the judgment in Mohammed Farhan; directive to fill vacant disability reservation seats via inter-change of categories within three months.

Jesa Ram Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5574 / 2018

Jesa Ram

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondents

_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Jangid For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikas Choudhary for Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, AAG

¶9

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶10

Order

¶11

20/04/2018

¶12

1 . Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in Mohammed Farhan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition NO. 11382/2017) , decided on 08.01.2017, the operative portion of the judgment reads as under :-

¶13

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 :-

¶14

A. Determine the total vacancies of physically handicapped which

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

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.

¶17

B. Whatever seats of disabled persons due to non-availability 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.

¶18

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 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 interchange 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.

¶19

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.

¶20

The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. ”

¶21

In light of the aforequoted judgment, the writ petition is disposed of in the same terms.

¶22

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J.

¶23

/zeeshan/

Jesa Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jesa Ram v. State of Rajasthan 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

Harish Patidar Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Anil Kumar Teli Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Sh Pratapmal Dharewa Dadabadi TRUSTandORS Vs Ganpat Das and Ors.

Baljeet Kaur and Anr. Vs State and Ors.

Chetan Prakash Verma Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Mahendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.