Madras High Court
Raja Senthoor vs M.C.Swamy on 8 September, 2011
Author: D.Hariparanthaman
Bench: D.Hariparanthaman
?IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS %DATED: 08/09/2011 *CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN +WP.6605 of 2011 #P.Sivakumar $Department of Agriculture !FOR PETITIONER : Raja Senthoor ^FOR RESPONDENT : M.C.Swamy :ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATAURE AT MADRAS DATED 08.09.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.No.6605 of 2011 P.Sivakumar .. Petitioner Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of Tamilnadu, New Secretariat, Chennai 600 005.
2.The Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of Tamilnadu, New Secretariat, Chennai 600 005.
3.The Commissioner of Agriculture, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. .. Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the third respondent to consider the petitioner's appointment in the post of the Assistant Agriculture Officer, Tamil Nadu Agriculture Extension Subordinate Service under the physically handicapped persons quota of 3% reservation.
For Petitioner : Mr.Raja Senthoor Pandian For Respondents : Mr.M.C.Swamy, Special Government Pleader O R D E R The writ petition is filed to direct the third respondent to consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of the Assistant Agriculture Officer, Tamil Nadu Agriculture Extension Subordinate Service under the physically handicapped persons quota of 3% reservation.
2.The petitioner passed the Higher Secondary Course in Vocational Education during the year 1994. Thereafter, he obtained Diploma with First Class in Horticulture at Horticultural Training Centre, Government of Tamilnadu, Chennai. He registered his name in Employment Exchange, Karur during the year 2005. After more than 10 years of completion of his Diploma, he was called for attending interview for the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer, but, he was not selected.
3.The grievance of the petitioner is that the selection was not conducted in a transparent manner. Though 1707 posts were filled up, he was not selected. According to the petitioner, he belongs to Schedule Caste community and he is also a physically challenged person. The Medical Board, Government Hospital, Karur issued a disability certificate that he suffers permanent disability at 40%. The disability was due to the fire accident that took place when the petitioner was a child. Again, the respondents sought to fill up 996 posts for the above said designation during the year 2010. He was also called to attend the interview. He attended the interview on 22.1.2011. This time also he was not selected and the selection was not transparent.
4.The petitioner alleged that the list of selected candidates was not posted in the website and the same was not published in any one of the newspapers. The persons who were not selected were not informed. The grievance of the petitioner is that 3% reservation quota provided under "The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1955 (1 of 1996) was not complied with by the respondents while they filled up the post of Assistant Agricultural Officer. He categorically pleaded that 3% quota out of 996 posts comes to 33 posts and the said 33 posts were not earmarked for the persons with disability. Under such circumstances, he filed the present writ petition seeking for direction to consider him for appointment to the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer, Tamil Nadu Agriculture Extention Subordinate Service under the physically handicapped persons quota of 3% reservation.
5.This Court passed an order dated 7.4.2011 granting interim direction to the third respondent to keep one post vacant in the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer, Tamil Nadu Agricultural Extention Subordinate Service.
6.The respondents filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations in which they have stated that 3398 candidates were sponsored by the Director of Employment for 996 posts of Assistant Agriculture Officer. Out of the said 3398 candidates, only 2054 were eligible candidates who possessed Diploma Certificates. The petitioner was one among them. 995 candidates were selected. Since there was an interim order passed by this Court in M.P.No.1 and 2 of 2009 to keep one post vacant, the respondents kept one post vacant. The petitioner comes under Schedule Caste category. He obtained 7 marks for Diploma, 10 marks for Employment Seniority and 5 marks for interview and altogether he obtained 22 marks out of 50 marks. However, the interview committee fixed minimum 31 marks out of 50 marks for Schedule Caste candidates. Hence, he was not selected for the above said post.
7.Heard both sides.
8.The petitioner has pleaded that he is a person with disability and the Medical Board, Government Hospital, Karur issued certificate that the petitioner suffers permanent disability of 40% and the said disability certificate has been enclosed in the typed set at page No.16. The petitioner also pleaded in paragraph 4 of the affidavit that he is a disabled person with 40% disability assessed by the Medical Board, Government Hospital, Karur due to the fire accident occurred during his childhood.
9.The fact that the petitioner is a person with disability is not disputed in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. Furthermore, the petitioner categorically pleaded that 3% reservation is not provided for the person with disability.
10.Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1955 reads as follows:
"Reservation of posts:- Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less than three per cent. for persons or class of persons with disability of which one per cent. each shall be reserved for persons suffering from-
(i)blindness or low vision;
(ii)hearing impairment;
(iii)locomotor disability or cerebral palsy, in the posts identified for each disability:
Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any department or establishment, by notification subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section".
11.The petitioner has categorically pleaded in paragraph 12 of the affidavit, which reads follows:
"I submit that there is a quota of 3% for physically handicapped persons in the above said appointments in the 996 posts for which selection list have been released by the third respondent. If it is calculated according to 3% quota out of 996 posts there are 33 vacancies which have to be filled up by the physically handicapped persons. I further state that but I came to know that the above said Physically Handicapped posts are filled up some of other candidates who do not come under the Physically Handicapped quota. I further state that if the third respondent had properly filled up the Physically Handicapped quota I would have been selected out of the 33 vacancies according to my age, qualification and seniority. I further state that but the third respondent for the reasons best known had not adhered the principal of the reservation quota, but in contra the third respondent had filled up some of the other persons belonged other categories in the quota of physically handicapped posts".
12.In the counter affidavit, there is no denial of the above pleadings made in paragraph 12 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition.
13.Though the respondents have stated that they have provided 3% reservation for the person with disability, they have filled up 33 vacancies with the other persons and not with the persons with disability. Furthermore, Roaster under G.O.Ms.No.15 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (K) Department dated 27.05.2009, which is filed along with the counter nowhere provides for appointment to the person with disability. Hence, I am of the view that the respondents have not adhered to Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1955 (1 of 1996).
14.In such circumstances, I am of the view that a direction may be given to the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer in the post kept vacant, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 7.4.2011. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
15.The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition Nos.1 and 2 are closed.
08.09.2011 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Office to Note:
Issue order copy on 12.9.2011 cla To
1.The Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of Tamilnadu, New Secretariat, Chennai 600 005.
2.The Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of Tamilnadu, New Secretariat, Chennai 600 005.
3.The Commissioner of Agriculture, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
D.HARIPARANTHAMAN,J cla W.P.No.6605 of 2011 08.09.2011