Punjab-Haryana High Court
Babita vs State Of Haryana And Others on 27 October, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 5685 of 2010
Date of Decision: October 27, 2010
Babita
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. Ramesh Chopra, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Inderesh Goel, Addl. AG, Haryana,
for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. H.N. Mehtani, Advocate,
for respondent No. 3.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest?
M.M. KUMAR, J.
The short issue raised in the instant petition is whether the respondent State of Haryana could restrict the recruitment of physically handicapped persons from amongst Haryana domicile alone. In that regard instructions dated 15.7.1985 (R-1) has been made subject matter of challenge by the petitioner.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a practicing Advocate in the District Court, Chandigarh and permanent resident of Union Territory, Chandigarh. She is physically handicapped and suffers from 60% disability as per the certificate issued by the competent authority (P-1). On 10.3.2010, the Haryana Public Service Commission issued an advertisement advertising 83 (actual) and 30 C.W.P. No. 5685 of 2010 2 (anticipated/unforeseen) posts of Civil Judges (Junior Division) in the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch). Out of the 83 posts, 4 posts were kept reserved for Physical Handicapped persons of Haryana. Further bifurcation of the posts reserved for Physical handicapped persons has been given in para 6 of the advertisement, which reads thus:
"6) The posts reserved for Physically handicapped persons (with atleast 40% disability) will be filled from the candidates belonging to below mentioned categories:
a. Two posts for a low vision (found fit for discharging the duties of a Civil Judge by the Medical Board constituted under Rules).
b. One post for Hearing impaired (found fit for discharging the duties of a Civil Judge by the Medical Board constituted under Rules).
c. One post of Locomotors disability."
It is obvious that reservation has been made for physical handicapped persons of Haryana domicile only and one post was to be filled up from a person suffering from Locomotors disability. The grievance of the petitioner is that due to above stipulation only the physically handicapped persons belonging to Haryana are entitled to avail the benefit of reservation, which amounts to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Even the persons like the petitioner, who are permanent residents of Chandigarh, which is State capital of Haryana, could not apply against the reserved posts. It has also been averred that the Judicial Officers in the Union Territory, Chandigarh are posted from amongst the HCS and PCS Judicial Officers as there is no separate Judicial Service of the Union Territory, Chandigarh.
The matter is no longer res integra. A Division Bench of this Court C.W.P. No. 5685 of 2010 3 in the case of Parvinder Suman v. Haryana Public Service Commission, Chandigarh and others (CWP No. 18471 of 1996, decided on 1.2.2006), has held that a person belonging to Adharmi caste living in Chandigarh was not entitled to be considered as member of Adharmi caste which is recognised as Scheduled Caste in the State of Haryana because he was not domicile of the State of Haryana. Likewise, the reservation made for physically handicapped belonging to the State of Haryana and who are domicile in Haryana alone would be entitled to compete for the advertised posts of Civil Judges (Junior Division) in the Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch). The Division Bench has also considered and rejected the argument emerging out of the fact that the Union Territory, Chandigarh is capital of State of Haryana and, therefore, the residents living in Chandigarh would ipso facto be regarded as domicile of the State of Haryana. The writ petition, therefore, does not merit admission. The instructions dated 15.7.1985 do not suffer from any constitutional infirmity. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.
(M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE
(RITU BAHRI)
October 27, 2010 JUDGE
Pkapoor