Karnataka High Court
Abubakar vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 17 September, 2024
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7027
WP No. 208448 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO.208448 OF 2017 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
ABUBAKAR,
S/O ABDULSATTAR KARAJAGI,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O. J.M. ROAD, HARIYAL GALLI,
(MOHAMADIYA COLONY),
VIJAYAPUR.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANJAY M. JOSHI, AND
SRI PRAKASH S. MAISALGI, ADVS. FOR
SRI D. P. AMBEKAR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by SUMITRA
SHERIGAR 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Location: HIGH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,
NO.241, VIKAS SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DIRECTOR,
KPTCL (ADM & HUMAN RESOURCES),
BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
HESCOM, DHARWAD ROAD,
HUBBALLI-580020.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7027
WP No. 208448 of 2017
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (O & M),
HESCOM OFFICE,
NEAR BDA OFFICE,
BAGEWADI ROAD,
VIJAYAPUR-586101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVINDRA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2, R3 AND R4;
SMT. ARATI PATIL, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING
ANNEXURE-G, VIZ., ENDORSEMENT DATED 07.10.2015
BEARING REF NO.NIL STATING THAT THE PETITIONER'S
APPLICATION WAS REJECTED AS THE PETITIONER WAS
STATED AS BEING BOTH DEAF AND DUMB AND A WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING
ANNEXURE-O, ORDER DATRED 01.06.2017 BEARING
NO. HuViSAKumNi/ViNi/PraVai(Aa)/Li(Aa)/ SaLe(Aa)HiSa(Aa)/
KaaRaK-2013(11335)/EtaRa/2015-16/5357-59 PASSED BY THE
MANAGING DIRECTOR REJECTING THE REQUEST OF THE
PETITIONER AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA) A notification was issued on 12.06.2015 calling for application to various posts including that of a Junior Lineman. In respect of the post of Junior Lineman, 72 -3- NC: 2024:KHC-K:7027 WP No. 208448 of 2017 posts were reserved with the qualification that the disability should be only regards hearing impairment.
2. The petitioner had applied and had invoked the said reservation to his benefit. The petitioner produced medical certificates and also the relevant certificates issued by the concerned department to show that he was deaf and dumb.
3. HESCOM on consideration of the said application has proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioner, though he was otherwise eligible in all respects, on the ground that he was both deaf and dumb and the post was identified as one which could be filled up by partially deaf persons.
4. The petitioner has called in question this endorsement. The notification issued by the HESCOM states as follows:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7027 WP No. 208448 of 2017 ºÀÄzÉÝ : QjAiÀÄ ªÀiÁUÀðzÁ¼ÀÄ :
¸ÀªÀÄvÀ® ¥À.eÁ. ¥À.¥À. ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå ¥Àæ-1 ¥Àæ-2J ¥Àæ-2© ¥Àæ-3J ¥Àæ-3© MlÄÖ «ÄøÀ Áw ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå 106 22 352 28 105 28 28 35 704 UÁæ«ÄÃt 53 11 175 15 53 15 15 18 355 «ÄøÀ Áw ªÀiÁf 21 4 70 5 21 5 4 7 138 ¸ÉʤPÀ PÀ£ÀßqÀ ªÀiÁzsÀåªÀÄ 10 2 35 3 10 3 3 3 69 C¨sÀåyð AiÉÆÃd£É ¤gÁ²æÃvÀ 10 2 35 3 10 2 2 3 67 C¨sÀåyð «PÀ®ZÉÃvÀ£À C¨sÀåyð (±ÀæªÀt 11 2 35 3 11 3 3 4 72 zÉÆõÀ ªÀiÁvÀæ) MlÄÖ 211 43 702 57 210 56 56 70 1405
5. As could be seen from the above, the physical disability accepted for the post of Junior Lineman was hearing impairment only. The notification did not state that only those who had a partial hearing impairment would only be eligible to be considered for appointment.
6. Section 2(i) of the 1995 Act states that disability would mean hearing impairment also apart from other things. Section 2(l) defines hearing impairment as loss of 60 decibels or more in the better ear in the conversational range of frequencies. -5-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7027 WP No. 208448 of 2017
7. Thus, a person would be considered as having an hearing impairment, if he has a loss of 60 decibels or more in the better ear. Since the petitioner was completely deaf, obviously, he would fall within the meaning of a hearing impaired person. The authorities after having notified that applicants with an hearing impairment could apply cannot be permitted to thereafter contend that hearing impairment would only mean a partially deaf person and not a completely deaf person. It cannot be in dispute that if a person is totally deaf, he would, as a consequence also be dumb. The authorities having issued a notification stating that people with hearing impairment could apply cannot be permitted to reject the application on the ground that the post is reserved only for a partially deaf person.
8. In this view of the matter, the impugned endorsements are quashed and the respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner in the category of hearing impaired as indicated in the notification, since the -6- NC: 2024:KHC-K:7027 WP No. 208448 of 2017 respondents do not dispute the fact that the petitioner was otherwise eligible having passed the requisite tests and also having the better merit among the candidates and also because he is otherwise eligible and his name is included in the final selection list at Sl.No.1330 vide Annexure-L.
9. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30 CT: VD