Punjab-Haryana High Court
Supreet Singh vs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited ... on 16 May, 2012
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.16908 of 2010
Date of Decision: May 16, 2012
Supreet Singh
..... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & others
..... RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
. . .
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
. . .
PRESENT: - Mr. Gurpeet Singh, Advocate and Mr. Susheel
Gautam, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. P.S. Thiara, Advocate, for respondent
Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. V.K. Shukla, Advocate, for respondent
No.4.
. . .
Surya Kant, J (Oral)
1. The petitioner is a specially abled person who suffers with 50% permanent disability due to Cerebral Palsy C Hemiparesis. The Medical Certificate dated 12.7.2006 (Annexure CWP No.16908 of 2010 [2] P-2) is on record to this effect.
2. The petitioner must be credited with the fact that he did not allow the physical deformity to come in his way and took it as a challenge to complete his Degree in Civil Engineering. He applied for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) advertised vide Annexure P-1 by the erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board. The Advertisement expressly contemplated reservation for specially abled person (wrongly descripted as physically handicapped). It was further stipulated in the Advertisement that there were total 10 posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) including 5 posts reserved for different categories like Scheduled Caste, Ex-Servicemen, Specially Abled Person(s) and Backward Class etc. In this manner, only one post was required to be filled in from amongst the category of Specially Abled Person. The petitioner accordingly applied and competed for the above mentioned reserved post.
3. There is indeed no dispute that the petitioner stood first in the written examination in the reserved category to which he belongs. He was called for counselling to verify the original certificates etc. as there were no separate marks for interview. The petitioner, however, has been denied appointment on the premise that Board has subsequently reviewed its Policy and it decided not to fill up the back log vacancies. Hence no post was CWP No.16908 of 2010 [3] kept reserved in the category of Specially Abled Persons.
4. The aggrieved petitioner has approached this Court.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. It is not the case of the Board that the post reserved for Specially Abled Persons were advertised repeatedly or that due to non availability of eligible/ suitable candidates, the said post was de-reserved. It is also an admitted fact that the decision regarding reservation of posts has been reviewed after the advertisement and when the selection process was over.
7. In this factual backdrop, I am of the considered view that the decision of the Board in not carrying forward the back log vacancies of reserved categories defeats the very loadable object of reservation policy and it would deprive the reserved category candidates of the Policy benefit which is essentially meant for inclusive growth. The Board authorities must be reminded of the statutory mandate behind enactment of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 in terms whereof it is obligatory upon them to reserve atleast 3% posts in various cadres for the specially abled persons like the petitioner. The decision taken by the Board is contrary to the CWP No.16908 of 2010 [4] spirit and object of the aforestated Act and is also in conflict with Article 21 of the Constitution as it takes away the petitioner's right to lead a dignified life.
8. The action of the Board thus in denying appointment to the petitioner is wholly arbitrary and illegal. Since sufficient vacancies are still available, no direction to set aside the appointment of respondent No.4 is called for. While allowing the writ petition, suffice it would be to direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 to offer appointment to the petitioner as Assistant Engineer (Civil) within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Petitioner shall be entitled to notional seniority and pay fixation from the date when other selected candidates were given appointment, however, he shall not be entitled to arrears of payment.
9. Dasti.
(Surya Kant)
May 16, 2012 Judge
avin