Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner, who belongs to the Visually Handicapped category, is entitled to reservation as per the provisions contained in Section 33 and 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short ‘the Act of 2016’). Out of 784 candidates, who qualified on merits for 239 posts notified for vacancy, no post has been reserved for the visually handicapped category, whereas one percent posts are required to be reserved for them. The stand of the respondents on merits is to be although considered by the Tribunal, but the fact remains that without there being any reservation for the post, even if the petitioner is held entitled to consideration for the post, he would not be entitled for appointment because all posts would be filled up. He therefore contends that atleast one post be kept reserved for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further asserted that the process of selection should be kept in abeyance till the decision is taken by the Tribunal for the simple reason that the statutory mandate has not been complied with by the respondents. It has thus been prayed for setting aside the impugned order and accepting the prayer, as has been made in the writ petition.
