Uttarakhand High Court
Mahaveer Prasad Bamrara vs Union Of India And Others on 6 March, 2018
Author: Rajiv Sharma
Bench: Rajiv Sharma
WPSS No.700/2015 Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma, J.
Mr. M.C. Pant with Mr. Kishore Kumar, Advocates, for the petitioner.
Mr. B.S. Parihar, S.C., for the State. Mr. B.D. Kandpal, Advocate, for the Public Service Commission.
Mr. Tej Singh Bisht, Standing Counsel, for the Union of India.
The respondent-Public Service Commission issued the advertisement on 1.10.2011 for filling the posts of Tax and Revenue Inspectors. Three posts were reserved under the 'Physically Handicapped' category. Petitioner has lost both his legs. He applied under this category. In sequel to the advertisement dated 1.10.2011, his application was accepted. He was permitted to sit in the preliminary examination, the result whereof, was declared on 5.2.2014. Petitioner qualified the preliminary examination. Thereafter, he sat in the written examination. He qualified the same. The result of interview was declared on 3.3.2015.
The Public Service Commission, in its own wisdom, has sought certain clarification from the State Government about the manner in which the posts of 'physically handicapped' were to be filled up. The State Government informed the Public Service Commission on 24.2.2014 that the post of Tax and Revenue Inspector was to be filled up from amongst the physically handicapped persons who have lost one leg, one arm, partially deaf and partially blind.
The Public Service Commission should have sought the clarification at the time when the advertisement was issued on 1.10.2011 and not when the selection process was set in motion. The State Government while clarifying the position on 24.2.2014 has overlooked the functional disability which is a sine qua non for filling up the post. The purpose of providing reservation to the physically challenged persons is to minimise their hardship but without compromising the merit. The person who has larger disability must be preferred over those persons who have lesser degree of impairment. The Court would hasten to add that the nature of duties is also required to be looked into. If a person with one leg, one arm, partially deaf and partially blind disability can discharge the duties of Tax and Revenue Inspector at the wisdom of the State Government, there is no reason why a person, who has lost his both legs, could not discharge these duties. It is not a job which requires physical strength. The person who has lost his both legs can perform the duties of Tax and Revenue Inspector with his great determination. The State Government should have taken into consideration the nature of job to be performed vis-à-vis the disability incurred by a candidate. Petitioner was not informed at the time when he filled up the application form pursuant to the advertisement dated 1.10.2011. The reservation of 3% was meant for filling up the posts for the candidates having disability of one leg, one arm, partially deaf and partially blindness. The person without legs but with full hearing and eyesight is better than the person who is partially deaf and partially blind. All senses are intact except that the man has no legs.
The rules of the game cannot be changed midway as per the settled law. It is a fit case where the principles of promissory estoppel are applicable. Petitioner has altered his position to his detriment by submitting his application by going through the selection process, qualifying the preliminary examination as well as the final examination.
Petitioner was also interviewed. His result was declared but he was denied the appointment only on the ground that he did not fall in the category notified by the State Government to the Public Service Commission on 24.2.2014.
The fact of the matter is that the post of Tax and Revenue Inspector under the physically challenged category was not filled up and was carried forward. It pre- supposes that other candidates with the possibility of one arm, one leg, partially deaf and partially blind have not participated in the selection process. Petitioner has participated in the selection process, as noticed hereinabove, but was denied appointment only on the basis of the clarification regarding horizontal reservation, supplied to the Public Service Commission by the State Government on 24.2.2014. The underlying principle to provide reservation to a physically challenged person is to enable him to seek public employment after competing with other candidates as far as merit is concerned.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned notification order dated 17.4.2015 is quashed and set aside. The respondent- Public Service Commission is directed to recommend the name of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Tax and Revenue Inspector within four weeks from today. Thereafter, the needful shall be done by the State Government at the earliest.
It is made clear that one post was reserved for the petitioner pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(Rajiv Sharma, J.) 06.03.2018 Rdang