Patna High Court
Ashok Kumar vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 27 April, 2015
Author: Ajay Kumar Tripathi
Bench: Ajay Kumar Tripathi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.685 of 2015
===========================================================
1. Ashok Kumar Son of Sri Rameshwar Chaudhary R/O,Mohalla-Kamruddin
Ganj,back to Gandhi Park,P.O-Biharshariff,P.S-Laheri,Distt.-Nalanda,Pin-803101
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Secretary, Labour Resources
Department, Bihar, New Secretariat Building,Patna-800014
2. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna-15-Jawahar Lal Nehru
Marg, Bailey Road,Patna-800001.
3. The Bihar Public Service Commission through its Secretary, Patna-15-Jawahar
Lal Nehru Marg,Bailey Road,Patna-800001.
4. The Deputy Secretary-cum-Controller of Examination, Bihar Public Service
Commission, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road,Patna-800001.
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raj Nandan Prasad Singh
Mr Amit Anand
For State : Mr. Sanjeet Kumar Tiwari, AC to AAG 12
For BPSC : Mr Sanjay Pandey
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 27-04-2015
Petitioner became an applicant to the post of Principal
as well as Vice Principal in the Industrial Training Institutes
located in the State of Bihar. The advertisement is Annexure- 1 to
the writ application. When the petitioner did not hear from the
respondents or got a call for interview, he decided to file the
present writ application raising a grievance that he despite being
physically handicapped to the extent of 50%, he has not been
extended the benefit of reservation, which is available to this
category of persons in terms of provision of Section 33 of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.685 of 2015 dt.27-04-2015
2/4
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection and
Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
The respondent BPSC was called upon including the
State to explain their stand with regard to the grievance of the
petitioner. The State has taken a stand that the advertisement was
issued by the BPSC. The terms and conditions of the requirement
as well as reservation have been provided for in the advertisement
itself and the rules of reservation govern such case. It is a cryptic
counter affidavit no doubt because the burden has been shifted
upon the Bihar Public Service Commission to explain the
circumstances under which the petitioner did not get a call for
participation in the interview.
Counter affidavit of BPSC is a detailed counter
affidavit. They have taken a stand that reservation for physically
disabled candidates is in the advertisement itself but such
reservation is not absolute. They are guided by certain rules and
circulars, which have been issued by the State themselves taking
into consideration the provision of the Act as well as
communications received from the Government of India while
providing benefit of reservation to physically handicapped. They
have annexed Annexure- D, which is a policy issued under the
authority of Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms,
Patna High Court CWJC No.685 of 2015 dt.27-04-2015
3/4
Government of Bihar and is dated 5.1.2007. Benefit of reservation
for physically handicapped is granted on the basis of the
parameters laid down therein.
The Counsel for BPSC further explains that reservation
is provided in a terms with roster clearance. In addition to that,
since the reservation is horizontal reservation for physically
handicapped he has to compete amongst his class where he will get
benefit of reservation. Petitioner belongs to the SC category. The
last of the candidates, who was called in the interview, had
requisite marks, which is 76.55% and 75.66% respectively with
regard to advertisement no.13 of 2014 and 14 of 2014. Petitioner's
marks is only 53.52%.
In view of the above, it is not a deliberate or intentional
discrimination practiced to deny benefit to the petitioner despite
being physically handicapped. The right of the petitioner is
governed by set of rules and guidelines. So long as those rules are
not held to be violative of the statutes and the selection has been
carried out in terms of the said guidelines, especially Annexure- D
and the advertisement, no interference is warranted. What the
petitioner is looking for is a special reservation by virtue of the fact
that he is physically disabled, that interpretation cannot be
extended in view of Annexure- D, which is in operation since
Patna High Court CWJC No.685 of 2015 dt.27-04-2015
4/4
5.1.2007
Writ application is dismissed. Petitioner has no claim over and above what has been indicated in the previous part of the order.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) sk U