Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the acts and inaction of the appellant-State, the respondents approached the learned Single Bench of this Court with a prayer that the acts and inaction of the appellant-State in excluding their names from the provisional merit/selection lists without disclosing any reason may be declared bad in the eye of law. In the writ petitions filed on behalf of the respondents, it was stated that since they possess more marks than the persons who have been included in the provisional merit/select list, a direction may be issued to the appellant-State to include their names in the final merit/selection lists under their respective PH category (physically handicapped category).

The appellant-State being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgments passed by learned Single Bench has preferred the present special appeals.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant- State submitted that under Note-1 appended with Clause-3, it was clearly mentioned that a person having disability other than OL- one leg will not be eligible for recruitment against the reserved posts. Learned counsel contended that in the present case, indisputably, all the respondents are suffering from some additional disability or deformity, therefore, as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement for claiming reservation under the PH [2024:RJ-JD:34081-DB] (12 of 28) [SAW-572/2023] category (physically handicapped category), their names were rightly not included in the provisional select/merit list dated 14.12.2019 of the eligible candidates published by the department pursuant to the advertisement dated 18.06.2018.

10. On these grounds, learned counsel implored the Court to accept the present special appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 15.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Bench.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment passed by the learned Single Bench and submitted that the disability certificates possessed by the respondents specifies the nature of physical handicap and the degree of disability suffered by them. It is further submitted that as per Clause 13(viii) of the advertisement, the candidates who had applied under PH category and were possessing a certificate issued by the competent authority at the time of document verification, were not required to undergo a fresh medical examination. Only those candidates who had failed to produce disability certificates at the initial stage, were required to undergo the medical examination. However, in the present case, in ignorance of the aforesaid clause, all the respondents were subjected to the medical examination, wherein the medical board while certifying that they were suffering disability of more than 40% in one leg, has further indicated that they are having disability in both the legs. The fresh evaluation of the respondents by a Medical Board constituted by the appellant-State ignoring the [2024:RJ-JD:34081-DB] (14 of 28) [SAW-572/2023] disability certificates produced by them in conformity of the terms and conditions of the advertisement was per se illegal and cannot be read against their interests.