Himachal Pradesh High Court
Vishv Mohan vs Central University Of Himachal Pradesh on 12 March, 2020
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy, Jyotsna Rewal Dua
1 HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.4160 of 2019 Decided on:12.03.2020 .
Vishv Mohan .............Petitioner Versus Central University of Himachal Pradesh ........Respondent _______________________________________________________________ _____ Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice.
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Ms. Jubli Momalia, Advocate.
For the respondents Mr. :
Rajesh Kumar Sharma,
Assistant Solicitor General of India. ________________________________________________________________ L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice (Oral).
The respondent-Central University of Himachal Pradesh had issued Notification dated 09.05.2019, inviting online applications from the desirous eligible candidates for filling up various teaching posts in the said University on regular/contract basis, namely, Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor.
2. The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor against visually impaired (VI) category in the Departments of of Sociology and Social Work. As per the Note 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 20:22:56 :::HCHP 2to the Advertisement dated 09.05.2019, it was clarified that out of the total advertised teaching positions at Sr. Nos.A, B & C, the posts are reserved to be filled up amongst the persons .
with disabilities (Divyang) as under:-
a. One post is reserved for VH (Visually Handicapped).
b. Four posts are reserved for persons with disability:-OA (One arm), OL (one leg), BA(both arms), BL (both leg) and OAL (one arm and one leg) etc.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner had applied for regular vacancy of Assistant Professor against Visually Impaired (VI) category in the Departments of Sociology and Social Work. It is submitted that vide Advertisement dated 09.05.2019, total 51 posts were advertised for filling up posts of Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor in various Departments of the respondent-Central University.
4. It is further submitted that as per the amendment made to "The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act, 1995" (for short the Act of 1995), in the year 2016, four posts were reserved to the Persons with Disability (PWD). Section 33 whereof contemplates that every appropriate Government shall appoint ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 20:22:56 :::HCHP 3 in every establishment such percentage of vacancies, not less than three percent for the persons or class of persons with disability, of which one percent each shall be reserved for .
persons suffering from blindness or low vision. Clauses 2 and 7 of Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT), Government of India's Office Memorandum dated 15.01.2018, also provide the same. It is submitted that as per the aforesaid provisions though the respondent-University should have to make the selections and appointments accordingly, however, it is the apprehension of r the petitioner that contrary to these provisions and also Notification dated 19.05.2019, efforts are being made by the respondent-University to fill up the reserved vacancies only for Orthopedically Handicapped Category. It is further submitted that two persons have been selected under the Orthopedically Handicapped Category, which action on the part of the respondent-University is in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and more particularly, contrary to the provisions referred to above.
Hence, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition, with a prayer to direct the respondent-University to make selections and appointments strictly as per the Provisions contained in Sections 33 & 34 of the Act of 1995 and as per Clauses 2 & 7 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 20:22:56 :::HCHP 4 of Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT), Government of India's Office Memorandum dated 15.01.2018.
5. The respondent-University has filed statement of .
objections. It is the case of the respondent-University that as per the guidelines issued by Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT), Government of India, vide Memorandum dated 15.01.2018, the selection process is yet to be completed and accordingly the selections are to be made. The complete Clause 7 of the said Memorandum dated 15.01.2018, reads as under:- r "7.1. Every Government establishment shall maintain group-wise a separate vacancy based 100 point vacancy based reservation roster register in the format given in Annexure for determining/effecting reservation for the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities - one each for Group 'A' posts filled by direct recruitment, Group 'B' posts filled by direct recruitment and Group 'C' posts filled by direct recruitment. 7.2 Each register shall have cycle of 100 points and each cycle of 100 points shall be divided into four blocks, comprising the following points:
1st Block - Point No.01 to point No.25 2nd Block - point No.26 to point No.50 3rd Block - point No.51 to point No.75 4th Block - point No.76 to point No.100. 7.3 Points 1, 26, 51 and 76 of the roster shall be earmarked for persons with benchmark disabilities - one point each for four respective categories of disabilities. The Head of the establishment shall ensure that vacancies identified at SI. No.1, 26, 51 and 76 are earmarked for the respective categories of the persons with benchmark disabilities. However, the Head of the establishment shall decide the placement of the selected candidate in the roster register.
7.4 All the vacancies arising irrespective of
vacancies reserved for Persons with
::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 20:22:56 :::HCHP
5
Benchmark Disabilities shall be entered in the relevant roster. If the vacancy falling at point no. 1 is not identified for the Person with Benchmark Disability or the Head of the establishment considers it desirable not to fill it up by Persons with Benchmark Disabilities or it is not possible to fill up that post by the .
Persons with Benchmark Disabilities for any other reason, one of the vacancies falling at any of the points from 2 to 25 shall be treated as reserved for the person with benchmark disability and filled as such.
7.5 Likewise, a vacancy falling at any of the points from 26 to 50 or from 51 to 75 or from 76 to 100 shall have to be filled by the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities. The purpose of keeping points 1, 26, 51 and 76 as reserved is to fill up the first available suitable vacancy.
7.6 There is a possibility that none of the vacancies from 1 to 25 is suitable for any category of the person with benchmark disability. In that case two vacancies from 26 to 50 shall be filled as reserved for persons with benchmark r disabilities. If the vacancies from 26 to 50 are also not suitable for any category, three vacancies shall be filled as reserved from the third block containing points from 51 to 75. This means that if no vacancy can be reserved in a particular block, it shall be carried over into the next block.
7.7 After all the 100 points of the roster are covered, a fresh cycle of 100 points shall start. 7.8 If the number of vacancies in a year is such as to cover only one block (say 25 vacancies) or two (say 50 vacancies), the category of the persons with benchmark disabilities should be accommodated as per the roster points.
However, in case, the said vacancy is not identified for the respective category, the Head of the establishment shall decide the category on the basis of the nature of the post, the level of representation of the specific disabled category in the concerned grade/post etc."
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record.
::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 20:22:56 :::HCHP 67. Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, submits that selection process, pursuant to Advertisement/Notification dated 09.05.2019, is not complete .
and the same is still in process. He submits that the respondent-University has not violated the provisions, referred to above, and the selections are to be made strictly as per the guidelines contained in Clause 7.1 & 7.2 of the aforesaid Memorandum dated 15.01.2018. He produced on record the latest instructions dated 11.03.2020, issued by the Central University of Himachal Pradesh, with regard to undertaking regarding filling up of post(s) identified for person(s) with disabilities, stating therein that the recruitment process against Employment Notice No.001/2019, dated 09.05.2019, is in hand and in process. It is further stated in the instructions dated 11.03.2020 that, in case, the Selection Committee did not find any suitable candidate, the last three positions/posts shall be kept vacant to be filled up amongst the suitable PWD candidates of respective category and shall be carry forwarded to be filled up from amongst PWD candidates in future. On the basis of above submissions, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, states that since the petitioner has approached this Court at a premature stage, i.e. before completion of selection ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 20:22:56 :::HCHP 7 process, the present writ petition may be dismissed being premature.
8. True it is that as per the submissions made by .
learned Assistant Solicitor General of India on behalf of the respondent-University, the selection process pursuant to Notification dated 09.05.2019, has not yet been completed and the same is still in process. The apprehension of the petitioner that under Clauses 2.2, 7.1 & 7.2 of the Office Memorandum dated 15.01.2018, issued by the Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT), Government of India, the post of Assistant Professor which is to be filled up from Visually Impaired (VI) Category in the Department of Sociology and Social Work for which the petitioner had applied pursuant to Notification dated 09.05.2019 and now according to the petitioner the same is likely to be filled up from amongst other category contrary to the aforesaid Clauses, contrary to Section 33 of the Act of 1995 and also in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, is not believable and sustainable in law, at this stage.
9. In view of the above discussion, at this stage, we see no illegality and infirmity in the selection process challenged by the petitioner. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed being premature. However, we hope and ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 20:22:56 :::HCHP 8 trust that the respondent-University shall proceed in the selection process in question pursuant to Employment Notification No.001/2019, dated 09.05.2019, strictly in .
accordance with the guidelines contained under Clauses 2 and 7 of the Office Memorandum dated 15.01.2018, issued by Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT), Government of India, in accordance with Section 33 of the Act of 1995 (now amended in year 2016) and under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(L. Narayana Swamy)
Chief Justice
(Jyotsna Rewal Dua)
March 12, 2020 Judge
(Yashwant)
::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 20:22:56 :::HCHP