Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"In view of the facts mentioned in Para-6 above, the applicant prays for the following relief(s):-
The Hon'ble Tribunal may be graciously pleased to allow the Original Application, quash the recommendation agaisnt the post of physically handicapped vide Notice No. 1497 dated 14.03.2017 under Annexure-6 and further direct the respondent No. 2 to recommend the name of the applicant for the post of Junior Lecturer in Odia in O.E.S. (Group-B) Service as partially deaf candidate pursuant to the advertisement No. 6 of 2013-14 and pass such other further order/orders as are deemed just and proper."

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that pursuant to the advertisement issued under Annexure-1 by Odisha Public Service Commission (in short 'Commission') Petitioner made his application as against the post of Junior Lecturer in the discipline Odia.

// 3 // 4.1. It is contended that in the advertisement in question as against the discipline Odia, 42 posts were advertised and out of those 42 posts, one post was reserved for candidate belonging to Partial Deaf (PD). 4.2. It is contended that Petitioner with having the certificate that he belongs to Partial Deaf category, made his application and participated in the selection process. Petitioner was allowed to take part in the written examination pursuant to the admission certificate issued by the Commission under Annexure-3.

4.3. It is contended that Petitioner having come out successful in the written examination, he was allowed to take the viva-voce test vide notice issued on dtd.14.02.2017 under Annexure-4. But thereafter when case of the Petitioner was not recommended as against the discipline Odia under PD category, while recommending 42 candidates in different categories vide notice dtd.14.03.2017 under Annexure-6, the present writ petition was filed with the prayer as indicated hereinabove.

4.4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since in the advertisement in question one post was reserved for candidates belonging to Partial Deaf and no such candidate was recommended // 4 // while recommending all 42 candidates in the discipline Odia, such action of the Commission is not sustainable in the eye of law and Petitioner's case should have been recommended as Petitioner was allowed to take part in the selection process by appearing the written test and viva voce as having belong to PD category. It is accordingly contended that appropriate direction be issued to the Commission to recommend his name as against the post reserved for Partial Deaf in the advertisement issued under Annexure-1 vide Advertisement No. 06/2013-14.

"6. That the Petitioner applied under the UR (PWD-HH) category. i.e., partially deaf category and submitted a disability certificate with 45% disability at the time of online application form. However, at the time of document verification, the Petitioner submitted another disability certificate with 60% (HH) disability containing the remark as 'This condition is Likely to Improve (TEMPORARY)'. Hence, his case could not be considered under the physically challenged category. In this // 6 // connection, the copy of the relevant portion of the Resolution of Govt. in GA & PG Department bearing No.34450/Gen, dt.03.12.2013 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-