Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Facts of the case, in short, are as under:

(i) The MPPSC issued the advertisement No.5/Examination/ 2013 dated 30.12.2013 inviting the applications from the aspirants for their appointment for various posts under the State Civil Service through State Civil Services Examination, 2013.

The aforesaid advertisement was issued for total 755 posts providing vertical reservation for Unreserved ,SC,ST & OBC and as well as horizontal reservation for women and Persons with Disabilities candidates as per law. The petitioner applied for appointment on several posts under the "physically handicapped (hearing impairment)" category. Out of 755 posts, respondents No.1 and 2 have reserved 14 posts for physically handicapped persons. These 14 posts reserved for handicapped category have been divided as per cadre strength in each group of posts meant to be filled with persons with benchmark disabilities as per Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2016" for short). Accordingly, out of 14 posts, 7 posts were earmarked for unreserved category; 1 post for Scheduled Caste (SC); 4 posts for Scheduled Tribe (ST) & 2 posts for Other Backward Classes (OBC).

(ii) According to the petitioner, she did well in the examination and secured 998 marks and stood at Sr. No.11 in the order of merit under physically handicapped (hearing impairment), but she has wrongly been placed in the waiting list. According to the petitioner, respondent No.3 had applied under the handicapped category in OBC category. He secured total 1218 marks and has been appointed as Assistant Director, (Finance) in the unreserved category which is not permissible under the law. Because of the wrong selection of respondent No.3 in the unreserved category, the entire selection of handicapped (hearing impairment) persons has been adversely affected and due to which, she could not secure the position in the selection list. The respondents No.1 and 2 have also not followed the provisions of M.P. Civil Services (Special Provisions of Appointment of Women) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 1997" for short) while making the reservation in respect of physically handicapped person (hearing impairment) female hence the she is before this Court by way of present writ petition seeking quashment of selection list dated 25.6.2016 so far as it relates to selection of respondent No.3 and her non-selection.

3. After notice in the writ petition, respondent No.1, State Government has filed the return by submitting that out of 755 vacancies as advertised for the State Civil Services Examination 2013, around 311 women candidates have been selected which comes to 41% of the total selection and accordingly, more than 30% of the total seats have been filled by the women candidates, hence the Rules of 1997 have been complied. It is further submitted that out of 755 vacancies, 14 posts have been reserved for physically handicapped (hearing impairment). As per Section 34 of the Act of 2016 and Rule 12 and 13(3) of M.P. Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017, number of posts are marked for physical handicapped persons in respective category and accordingly same have been computed on the basis of number of vacancy in a particular cadre/post and also respective roster which is maintained by each Government establishment ,the reservation for handicapped candidates in respective categories have been mentioned in the advertisement itself. The four posts reserved for handicapped (hearing impairment) in ST category have not been filled up because of the non-availability of the candidates.

"4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swati Gupta (Ms.) Vs. State of U.P. & Others as reported in (1995) 2 SCC 560, wherein it has been held that-
"Reservation for physically handicapped candidates would be horizontal and the candidates of the above categories selected on the basis of merit, would be kept under the categories of Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe/ OBC (Other Backward Classes)/ General, to which they belong. It has been explained by way of an example that if a candidate dependent on a Freedom- Fighter selected on the basis of reservation, belongs to the Scheduled Caste, he will be adjusted against the seats reserved for Scheduled Caste. Similarly, if a physically handicapped candidate selected on the basis of reservation belongs to Other Backward Classes (OBC) or General category, he would be adjusted against the seats reserved for OBC or General category."