Reserved Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 81 of 2019 Appellant :- Shushil Rai Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- In Person Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K.S.Parihar,Lalta Prasad,Satyaveer Singh,Shivasare,Sushil Kumar Saroj Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
(Delivered by Hon Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J)
1. This Special Appeal is directed against the order dated 19.12.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ A No 11127 of 2011 filed by appellant petitioner whereby the said writ petition was dismissed.
2. The appellant petitioner, who is appearing in person had applied for the post of Asstt Teacher, LT Grade in physical education under the unreserved category, claiming reservation under the category of physical handicapped (hearing impairment). Final selection took place whereby out of 233 vacancies, 225 vacancies for male and 21 vacancies out of 26 vacancies for female were filled pursuant to advertisement No 1 of 2009 issued by Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Allahabad for Asstt Teachers LT Grade in different subject. 7 posts (3% of posts of 225 vacancies) were reserved for the candidates,who were physically handicapped under the provisions of the U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Dependants of Freedom Fighters, Physically Handicapped and Ex-servicemen) Act 1993. The reservation is provided in three Categories (1) hearing impairment, (2) Low vision impairment and (3) Locomotor disability. Under the horizontal reservation, the reservation has been provided for every category. In all, 7 candidates were given benefit of physically handicapped reservation out of which 4 belonged to unreserved category and three belonged to OBC category. As per the result declared, two general category candidates, who have been given benefit of reservation under hearing impairment, have got higher marks than the appellant herein. The appellant-petitioner approached the learned Single Judge by way of filing writ petition seeking benefit of reservation provided to physically handicapped candidates. The learned Single Judge after considering the factual position and the materials on record came to the following conclusion.
“It is not in dispute that the last selected candidate under unreserved category (UR) obtained 415.60 marks and two candidates with hearing impairment were adjusted in the merit list (UR) of selected candidates. The adjusted candidates obtained 378.40 and 376.80 marks respectively. Petitioner, admittedly, scared 364.20 marks and being lower in marks to the adjusted candidates under the category of hearing impairment was not adjusted in the 1% quota of that category.”
3. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present Special Appeal. The appellant in person canvased that only one person, who is higher in merit has been appointed by granting reservation under the category “hearing impairment”. However, the learned counsel for the respondents has called in question such claim and contended that two persons higher in merit have been given benefit of reservation under the category “hearing impairment”. This Court vide order dated 15.5.2019 had called for the record for verification.
4. Appellant in person also submitted that after granting benefit to six candidates (two each from Vision, Hearing and Locomotive impairment), remaining one seat out of seven seats reserved ought to have been given to the appellant being higher in merit. However, the seventh seat has been given to a general candidate having vision impairment who is lower in merit. We are of the considered view that such argument has no force as 7th seat has been given as per the scheme of granting reservation to particular category. Therefore, such ground is liable to be rejected and accordingly rejected.
5. We have perused the record submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents and we are satisfied that the two persons, who are admittedly higher in merit vis a vis the appellant-petitioner have been given benefit of reservation under the category of “hearing impairment”. The record has also been shown to the appellant appearing in person to which he did not raise any dispute.
6. Considering the materials on record and the submissions made across the bar, we are in respectful agreement with the view taken by learned Single Judge. In appeal, appellant appearing in person has not been able to show any error permeating the impugned judgment.
7. In the above conspectus, the Special Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 30.5.2019 MH (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) (Abhinava Upadhya,J.)