Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited vs Supreet Singh on 28 August, 2012
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Rajiv Narain Raina
LPA No. 1262 of 2012 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
LPA No. 1262 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 28.08.2012
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited
(formerly known as PSEB) ..... Appellant
Versus
Supreet Singh ..... Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. G.S. Ghuman, Advocate,
for the appellant.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
CM No.3380 of 2012 This is an application for condonation of delay of 03 days in filing the appeal.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 03 days in filing the appeal is condoned. LPA No.1262 of 2012
The present appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 16.05.2012 allowing the writ petition and directing the respondent-appellant Punjab State Power Corporation Limited to offer appointment to the petitioner as Assistant Engineer (Civil). The petitioner has also been held entitled to notional seniority and pay fixation from the date when selected candidates joined service.
LPA No. 1262 of 2012 (O&M)-2-
Brief facts are that the appellant advertised several posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) to be filled in through direct recruitment. One post was reserved for differently abled persons protected under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. The petitioner qualified for the reservation as he was certified suffering from 50% permanent disability due to Cerebral Palsy C Hemiparesis of both lower legs. His eligibility is not disputed. He earned his degree in Civil Engineering despite all odds against him. The selection was based on written examination. He stood first in his reserved category. Unfortunately, despite having topped in his category, the petitioner now respondent before us was denied appointment on the pretext that the Corporation had reviewed its policy and decided not to fill up backlog vacancies of differently abled persons. Resultantly, there being no post left his claim for appointment was stultified which brought him before this Court in a writ petition which have been allowed by the learned Single Judge.
The learned Single Judge has returned two basic findings. Firstly, that it was not the case of the Board that post reserved for this class were advertised repeatedly but on none having been found eligible, suitable or available, the post was de-reserved. Secondly, the impugned review exercise was undertaken by the Corporation after the process of selection was over. The petitioner was singled out for adverse treatment and, therefore, there was breach of statutory duty cast on the employer under the provisions of the 1995 Act. It was on these premises that the learned Single Judge had issued the directions to offer appointment to the petitioner. LPA No. 1262 of 2012 (O&M) -3-
We have heard Mr. G.S. Ghuman, learned counsel appearing for the appellant at some length. He has not been able to justify before us the legal basis of denial of the claim of the petitioner for appointment specially when there was specific mention of relaxation in age limit for the category "C. Physically Handicapped" in the advertisement. The advertisement also offered total 10 posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) to be filled of including 5 posts reserved for different categories like Scheduled Castes, Ex-Servicemens, Specially Abled Person(s) and Backward Classes etc. as disclosed in the detailed advertisement uploaded on the website of the Corporation and downloadable from the internet. We are also not impressed by Mr. Ghuman's argument that the vacancies/posts had to be filled in by application of a running roster and by such operation the petitioner's claim would stand excluded on non availability of reserved roster point. There is a clear admission on the record of this case that there was an advertised vacancy in view of the specific defence taken by the Corporation that there was backlog of vacancies meant for differently abled persons. Such backlog would alone justify the conclusion that the writ petitioner-respondent was denied right to appointment and that right could not be postponed. We see no reason to take any view different from the one taken by the learned Single Judge in the background of the special Act, 1995.
Consequently, the appeal would stand dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA)
JUDGE JUDGE
28.08.2012
manju