Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Succinctly, material assertions of petitioners are that total reservation beyond 50% was impermissible, unconstitutional and contrary to the statutory Service Rules and the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India; there could not have been 10% reservation for SBC (78 seats) and 10% EBPG (79 seats); that it is not possible for a physically handicapped person to perform the duties of VLDA; that the vacancies reserved for Physically Handicapped category should be filled up from the General category candidates and that the petitioners who have rendered contractual service on same post are entitled to preferential consideration for their selection.

17.5 It is best left to the competent Rule making administrative authorities to prescribe the qualifications and eligibility criteria for appointment to various posts. It is of course expected of them to take into consideration the nature of the job and duties attached to the post and other relevant circumstances and then decide whether or not physically handicapped persons are capable of performing those duties/ functions and what duties to be assigned to them in accordance with their special abilities. The relevant rules applicable herein and framed by the competent authority do not prohibit appointment of physically handicapped persons to the post of Veterinary Livestock Development Assistants. It implies the satisfaction of the competent Rule making authority that physically handicapped persons are also competent and capable of performing the functions/duties of the post in question, though may be with some difficulty in some out of them, nonetheless, they still can be hired. Rules in any case are not under challenge. I find no justifiable reason for taking a contrary view and substitute the same for the decision of the competent Rule making authority. No judicial intervention is thus warranted qua the same, so as to give any direction to the contrary.

22. In the given situation, the course of action proposed in succeeding paras seems to be a better available alternative instead of taking the drastic step of quashing entire selection and appointments at this stage.

23. As noted above, against 68 posts reserved /advertised for the Physically Handicapped persons, only one candidate was selected/appointed. The remaining 67 posts reserved for Physically Handicapped candidates could not be filled and are lying vacant for want of eligible candidates in this category.

28. No doubt, subsequently (in CWP No.8500 of 2011 Joginder Singh v State of Haryana) decided on 07.02.2014 my learned brother Augustine George Masih, J. held that Garima Jindal ratio is per-incuriam. De hors the view taken in Joginder Singh supra decided on 07.02.2014, as shown above, the State is bound by its own instructions dated 15.07.2014 (Annexure P-14) issued subsequent to the judgment rendered in Joginder Singh. The said instructions, inter alia, self-profess that in case no suitable person with disability is available, for filling up the post in the subsequent year also, the employer may fill up the vacancy by appointment of a person other than a person with disability. In the light of subsequent policy instructions dated 15.07.2014, with utmost respect to the view taken in Joginder Singh supra, to my mind, the analogy in Garima Jindal supra has now (post-Joginder Singh) become applicable to the present case qua the available backlog of horizontally reserved 44 vacanciesfor Physically Handicapped Persons. Since, due to non-availability of Physically Handicapped candidates despite two attempts, these posts have remained unfilled.