Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhupendra Pratap Singh Kushwah vs State Of M.P. on 30 October, 2014
W.A.No.34/2013
( Bhupendra Pratap Singh Kushwah Vs. State of M.P. )
22.09.2014
Shri Ajay Bhargava, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri R.P. Rathi,Govt. Advocate for the Respondents
no.1 and 2/State.
Shri Deepak Chandana, Advocate for the respondent no.3.
(Sheel Nagu) (S.K. Palo)
Judge Judge
sh/-
W.A.No.34/2013
( Bhupendra Pratap Singh Kushwah Vs. State of M.P. ) 30.10.2014 Shri Ajay Bhargava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri R.P. Rathi,Govt. Advocate for the Respondents no.1 and 2/State.
Shri Deepak Chandana, Advocate for the respondent no.3.
I.A. No. 337/13, an application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 280 days in preferring this writ appeal, which is considered and allowed for reasons mentioned therein.
This writ appeal filed under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uccha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth ko Appeal) Adhiniyam 2005 assails the final order passed on 21.02.2012 in W.P. No. 3072/2009(S) by the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition in question.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant submits that the advertisement in question for appointment to the post of Patwari issued in the year 2008 did not categorize any of the vacancies to be reserved for handicapped persons, and therefore the appellant despite suffering from W.A.No.34/2013 physical disability to the extent of 40% could not mention in his application that he belongs to the handicapped category. It is further submitted that accordingly the candidature of the appellant was adjudged as an unreserved candidate, thereby relegating the appellant to a lower merit rank foreclosing his right to be appointed. It is submitted that when the result was declared, certain candidates were shown to be considered in the handicapped category. It is thus submitted that if the appellant knew that the reservation for handicapped persons was available in the selection in question, then appellant would have applied as handicapped candidate. It is thus lastly contended that by not mentioning any reservation for handicapped category, the respondent employer has not only denied rightful consideration of the appellant for public employment available to him under Article 16 of Constitution of India, but has also violated the object of the beneficial legislation contained in Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act,1995.
The scrutiny of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge discloses that the petition failed on account of the appellant having left, the space for W.A.No.34/2013 handicapped in the OMR sheet/application form, as blank leading to the appellant being considered as an unreserved category candidate.
After hearing the learned counsel for rival parties and considering the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that even if the contention of the appellant is treated to be true, that he was denied the rightful claim of being considered for public employment on account of the State having failed to mention any reservation for handicapped category persons in the advertisements, the undeniable is that the disability certificate (vide P-5 in W.P.) of suffering from 40% mild disability was issued on 26.06.2009 which is subsequent in point of time to the process of recruitment in question which took place in 2008.
Even before this Court in the present writ appeal, the appellant is unable to demonstrate that the disability as reflective from the above said certificate P-5 existed, even when the appellant applied for recruitment in question.
In view of the above, this Court is afraid that no relief can be granted to the appellant for having failed to establish existence of disability of 40% at the time of applying for recruitment to the post of Patwari in 2008.
W.A.No.34/2013Thus, we concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge of dismissal of the petition, but for a different reason as stated above.
Consequently this writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost.
(Sheel Nagu) (S.K. Palo)
Judge Judge
sh/-