Orissa High Court
Rajbeer Singh Bisht vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 23 December, 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 1580 of 2013 (S/S)
Rajbeer Singh Bisht
S/o Shri Giriraj Singh Bisht .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .... Respondents
With
Writ Petition No. 1590 of 2013 (S/S)
Pramod Chand Ramola
S/o Late Shri Alel Chand Ramola .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .... Respondents
Mr. Davesh Bishnoi, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. G.D. Joshi, Advocate
for the private respondents.
Hon'ble Alok Singh, J.
Since in both the petitions identical questions of
facts and law are involved, therefore, both the petitions
are being taken up and are being disposed of by this
common judgment with the consent of the learned
counsel appearing for the parties.
In Writ Petition No. 1580 of 2013, petitioner
applied for the post of Village Development Officer
under the O.B.C. physically handicapped quota while
petitioner of Writ Petition No. 1590 of 2013, applied for
the post of Village Development Officer under the O.B.C.
ex-serviceman quota. Both the petitioners were not
selected on the ground that quota for the physically
handicapped person and for ex-serviceman is available
only for general category candidate and not for other
reserved categories.
2
In both the cases, while issuing notice to the
respondents, Coordinate Bench of this Court in so many
words directed that selection of the private respondents
shall be subject to the final decision of these writ
petitions. Notice were sent to the private respondents
by registered post A.D. Even after the expiry of 30 days,
neither un-served registered letter nor signed A.Ds.
were received back, therefore, it shall be presumed that
private respondents have already been served.
Learned counsel appearing for the parties fairly
submitted that Division Bench of this Court in Writ
Petition (S/B) No. 25 of 2012 and connected matters,
vide judgment dated 17.05.2012, has held that
reservation for physically handicapped person and
under the category of ex-serviceman shall be horizontal
reservation and shall be applicable for all categories.
Division Bench further held that contention of the State
that reservation under the disability category would only
be available for the general category candidates cannot
be sustained in the eyes of law.
In view of the judgment passed by the Division
Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 25 of
2012 and connected matters on 17.05.2012, learned
counsel for the parties fairly submitted that petitioners
ought to have been granted benefit of reservation under
the physically handicapped as well as ex-serviceman
quota. Therefore, present petitions may be disposed of
in the light of the judgment passed by the Division
Bench of this Court dated 17th May, 2012 in Writ
Petition (S/B) No. 25 of 2012 and connected matters.
3
Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Standing Counsel further
submits that case of the petitioners shall be considered
in view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of
this Court dated 17th May, 2012, in Writ Petition (S/B)
No. 25 of 2012 and connected matters preferably within
two weeks from today. If petitioners are otherwise
found eligible, their cases shall be considered for
appointments.
Order accordingly.
Certified copy of this order may be supplied to the
learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual
charges within 24 hrs.
(Alok Singh, J.)
Dated 23rd December, 2013
Shiv