Chattisgarh High Court
Sunil Kumar Chawre vs Cg State Power Holding Com. Ltd.Andanr on 20 June, 2024
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:20612
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 2502 of 2011
• Sunil Kumar Chawre Aged About 47 Years S/o Liladhar Prasad
Chawre, R/o Village Bitkuli, Post Nawapara Thana And Tahsil
Suhela, Hathbandh, Distt.-Raipur, C.G. ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited through
Managing Director, CSPHCL, Head Quarter, Dangania,
Chhattisgarh.
2. Additional General Manager (HR) CSPHCL, Head Quarter,
Dangania, Chhattisgarh ----Respondents
For Petitioner : Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate.
For Respondents : Shri Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kushboo Dua, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20.06.2024
1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:-
"10.1 The Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to revise select list and issue fresh select list of Assistant Engineer (Electronics) after following reservation rule made for Physically handicapped person like petitioner by issuing appropriate writ/ direction / order.
10.2 The Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to consider name of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electronics) on Physically handicapped category by issuing appropriate writ/ direction /order.
10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:20612 2 and proper be awarded in favour of the petitioner."
2) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner who has passed the B.Tech examination participated in the advertisement for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electronics) under the physically handicapped category pursuant to the advertisement dated 08.04.2010. He would further submit that the final selection list was published on 15.02.2011. He would also submit that out of 15 posts, 2 posts of Assistant Engineer (Electronics) were reserved for OBC Category. He would further argue that in the note of advertisement, it is specifically stated that it includes backlog vacancies, and posts reserved for female and physically handicapped candidates, therefore, the candidature of the petitioner should have been considered by the respondents. He would also argue that according to provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 the respondents ought to have notified vacancies for the physically handicapped category.
In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment dated 20.10.2021 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No. 123 of 2013 (Mahesh Kumar Pandey vs. The Chairman, Coal India Limited and Ors.) and the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Rajeev Kumar Gupta and Others vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2016) 13 SCC 153; State of Kerala and Others vs. Leesamma Joseph reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 435 and Siddaraju vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in 2020 Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:20612 3 SCC OnLine SC 45.
3) On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that according to provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, 6% reservation can be given to persons with physical disability. He would further submit that out of 6% posts, 2% posts were reserved for candidates with blindness, 2% posts for candidates with hearing impairment and 2% posts for other kinds of disability. He would further argue that the reservation would be horizontal and compartment-wise. He would also argue that only 2 posts were reserved for the OBC category and 2% did not qualify for a single post, therefore, no post was reserved for the physically handicapped OBC category. He would contend that where the number of vacancies is high, equal representation is given to persons with physical disability.
4) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on the record.
5) Admittedly, the petitioner belongs to the OBC category and he falls under the physically handicapped category also. The petitioner is a B.Tech pass and he participated in the recruitment process for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electronics). Out of 15 posts, 2 posts were reserved for the OBC category. The note appended to the advertisement clearly states that the vacancy includes backlog vacancies, and posts reserved for female and Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:20612 4 physically handicapped candidates, meaning thereby, the total vacancy includes reservations for physically handicapped candidates also. There were 15 posts of Assistant Engineer (Electronics) against which the petitioner had submitted his application. Two posts were reserved for the OBC Category. According to the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, a total of 6% of seats can be reserved for the physically handicapped category. 6% has again been bifurcated compartment-wise, 2% for persons with blindness, 2% for persons with hearing impairment and 2% for persons with other kinds of disability. The petitioner would fall in the third category i.e. the persons with other disability. 2% of two posts would come to 0.04% which cannot be rounded up to one post, therefore, no seat was reserved for a physically handicapped person.
6) Taking into consideration the facts of the present case, the judgments relied on by Shri H.B. Agrawal, the learned Senior Advocate, is of no help. The facts of the cases cited are entirely different from the facts of the present case. Given the facts as stated above, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference.
7) Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi