Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13041 of 2018 Petitioner :- Kapil Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
The petitioner seeks consideration of his claim for appointment under physically handicapped quota against the vacant post of Assistant Boring Technician pursuant to the advertisement no. 3/Stha-6/Saha.Bo.Te/2003-04.
It appears that the dispute being raised in the present petition has been addressed by this Court in its judgment and order dated 31.7.2012 passed in Writ A No. 34286 of 2003.
It was held therein that there was no reservation clause for handicapped persons in the advertisement no.3/Stha- 6/Saha.Bo.Te/2003-04. However, in the final select list declared on 17.7.2003 some candidates were selected in the category of physical handicapped.
It was observed in respect of handicapped quota since there was no reservation published and advertised in the advertisement and there was no occasion for the candidates to mention that they belong to physically handicapped category or to attach the testimonials in support of their claim for the said category.
In the written test, no separate list of selected candidates or reserved category of physical handicapped quota was prepared, interview letters did not require the candidates to bring the testimonials or evidence to support of their claim as physical handicapped category. There is nothing on record that the selection committee in any manner had informed all the candidates who have appeared in the selection that to satisfy the requirement of physical handicapped to the prescribed percentage, they should submit their testimonial for their disability.
In the said circumstances, it was concluded by the learned Single Judge that the entire action of the selection committee is tainted by malice in law. The recruiting authority could not have carved out the criteria which was not intimated in the advertisement.
It was, therefore, held that the selection of certain persons under physical handicapped quota was clearly made on extraneous consideration.
Finally, appropriate directions were issued to the competent authority to correct the select list in the light of the said observations.
In view of the facts noted above, the prayer made in the present petition is found misconceived. Dismissed as such.
Order Date :- 29.5.2018
AK Pandey