Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 13.09.2019 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.3 vide which the appointment of the petitioner as Shift Attendant, against the reserved post for the disabled persons, has been cancelled.

CONTENTIONS

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner participated in the selection process in terms of the advertisement No.3 of 2016 under Category 1 i.e. Shift Attendant. A total of 2426 posts for Shift Attendants were advertised across multiple departments, out of which 36 posts were kept reserved for partially deaf candidates. Accordingly, on the basis of the online application (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner, respondent No.6- 1 of 9 Commission issued him a roll number, as indicated by the admit card (Annexure P-3), with which he appeared in the written examination. Thereafter, on the basis of written examination, respondent No.6-Commission conducted scrutiny of documents and an interview for the post of Shift Attendant. The final result was declared on 08.03.2019 (Annexure P-4) whereby the petitioner was declared successful.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 5 submits that respondent No.2, being the employer, had sent a clear requisition for the post of Shift Attendant and also provided reservation of 36 posts to partially deaf candidates. However, the petitioner is 100% deaf and as such, would be a danger to himself and those around him if he is allowed to work as a Shift Attendant with the UHBVNL. Moreover, the fault lies with respondent No.6- Commission as it should not have recommended a 100% deaf candidate for the post of Shift Attendant after ascertaining the extent of his disability during the process of scrutiny of documents. He further submits that the respondent- UHBVNL being the employer, is not bound to accept the recommendation of the recruitment agency and was well within its rights to cancel the appointment of the petitioner after examining his suitability.

10. Further, a bare perusal of the advertisement (Annexure P-1) would make it clear that the intended benefactors of the said reservation were partially deaf candidates, thus, not those who are entirely deaf. The HPVNL had sought exemption for recruitment to the posts of Assistant Engineer/Junior Engineer and Shift Attendant vide letter dated 31.07.2006 and partially deaf persons were allowed to be recruited against them. The advertisement (Annexure P-1) leaves no ambiguity regarding the extent of disability that would render a candidate 5 of 9 suitable for the post of Shift Attendant. Moreover, a Shift Attendant is required to carry out switching operation on heavy duty electrical equipments as per the operating instructions, while following the safety code. The duties of the Shift Attendant have also been set out in the office order dated 09.03.2020 (Annexure R-1) attached with the written statement and the same is reproduced as under:-

(emphasis added)

13. In view of the discussion above, the present petition is hereby dismissed.

14. However, the fact remains that the respondent-Commission recommended the candidature of the petitioner, who is 100% deaf, to the post of Shift Attendant, where reservation was made only for those with partial deafness in the concerned category. Therefore, this Court finds it appropriate to 8 of 9 burden respondent No.6-Haryana Staff Selection Commission with a cost of ₹1,00,000/-, payable to the petitioner as compensation for the unnecessary hardship and trauma caused to him. The payment be made within 04 weeks of the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.