Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Partially deaf in Ram Kumar S/O Mani Ram vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Panchayat ... on 13 August, 2025Matching Fragments
11. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that apart from the fact the petitioner is an OBC and is also a physically handicapped as per the handicap certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer which indicates his permanent disability as 40%, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-4 to the petition, and as per the averments made in paragraph 6 of the supplementary counter affidavit dated 20.05.2015 it emerges that the respondents admit of having only filled in 494 posts of OBC vis-a-vis 499 posts that were advertised and have also indicated that the remaining vacancies against OBC are vacant due to non-availability of the applications for the post in question as the same belonged to deaf/partially deaf (PD/D) as such it is apparent that sufficient number of vacancies were available with the respondents on which the petitioner could have been appointed in his own category.
12. Learned Standing Counsel has however expressed his inability to address the Court on merits on account of not having the records.
13. Although in the counter affidavit it clearly emerges that the respondents in fact admit of having filled in only 494 vacancies out of 499 vacancies towards OBC that had been advertised and have indicated that the remaining vacancies i.e. 5 are vacant due to non-availability of deaf/partially deaf persons but it is not clear that as to whether a physically handicapped quota could be further divided into one towards deaf/partially deaf candidates leaving out another physically handicapped person, as in the instant case, i.e. the petitioner who is also 40% physically handicapped.
4. Responding Sri Piyush Kumar, learned Standing Counsel, indicates that in terms of Section 32 of the Act, 1995, Government Order dated 07.05.1999 had been issued, a copy of which is Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit dated 16.08.2011, which indicates at serial no.10 with respect to Group D posts of Sweeper, Cleaner and Related workers in the category of PDD.
5. Referring to the letter dated 24.04.2009, which is part of Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit, learned Standing Counsel states that PDD has been indicated so far as it pertains to Safai Karmi as partially deaf and dumb/deaf and dumb and as the petitioner is suffering from 40% locomotor disability consequently as the post of Sweeper, Cleaner and Related Workers has not been identified for the locomotor disability persons as such the petitioner is not entitled for benefit of any reservation.
7. In pursuance thereof, the Government order dated 20.09.1997 has been brought on record.
8. From perusal of the detailed order 23.07.2025 it emerges that an advertisement had been issued by the respondents dated 28.06.2008 inviting applications for various vacancies. Controversy revolves around 499 vacancies for Other Backward Class (OBC). The petitioner claims that his result was declared yet he has not been appointed although sufficient number of vacancies are available. The representation filed by the petitioner for his appointment has been rejected by the respondents vide order impugned dated 24.04.2009 by indicating that the post of Safai Karmi has not been identified against locomotor disability with which the petitioner is suffering rather the said post has been identified towards PD/D i.e. partially deaf and dumb/deaf and dumb.