Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

IC (ix) General in coordination of movement B (x) The blind PB (xi) Partially blind D (xii) The deaf PD (xiii) Partially deaf

5. A perusal of the above G.O. shows that the posts of Sweeper Dry, Sweeper Wet, Sweeper Sewer, Sweeper Cleaner & Related Workers could be filled up by the candidates who are deaf or partly deaf. The posts of Daftry, Attendant, Peon, Office Boy, Dusting Man Farash, Process Server etc. were identified to be filled up by the candidates with locomotor disability.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that once the G.O. dated 7.5.1999 has been struck down, as a consequence thereof, the appellants were entitled to be appointed in the category of persons suffering from locomotor disability.

9. On the other hand, Ms. Ruchira Goel, learned counsel for the State submitted that the G.O. itself has been wrongly struck down by the High Court. It was contended that the High Court has completely misread the G.O. dated 7.5.1999 as the posts have been reserved keeping in view the requirement of the posts to be filled up by the candidate seeking appointment. It was pointed out that for the posts of Sweeper (Dry, Wet, Cleaner & Related Workers) etc., reservation has been provided to deaf and partially deaf candidates, whereas for the persons with locomotor disability, reservation for the posts of Daftry, Attendant, Peon, Office Boy etc. has been provided. Therefore, striking down of the G.O. dated 7.5.1999 was not tenable. Ms. Goel relies upon the principles of Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 3 to contend that the ultimate order of the High Court can be maintained on other grounds than what weighed with the High Court while dismissing the writ petition.