Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (2.03 seconds)
Ashwani Kumar vs State Of J&K And Others on 27 February, 2020 cites

Mahesh Gupta & Ors vs Yashwant Kumar Ahirwar & Ors on 30 August, 2007

8 The respondents have filed their reply affidavit in SWP No. 3446/2014 and on their request, the reply affidavit filed in the said petition has been treated as reply in the instant petition. 9 In the reply affidavit filed by respondent No.3, the only stand taken to refute the claim of the petitioner for reservation under the category of „persons with disabilities‟ is that as per the Government Order No. 62 -SW of 2001 dated 13.03.2001 read with Government Order No. 231-SW of 2011 dated 22.12.2011, no provision for reservation in favour of persons with disability of „hearing impairment‟ is made insofar as the posts of Jr. Physiotherapist is concerned. It is, thus, submitted that in the absence of identification of posts of Jr. Physiotherapist for the purpose of granting the benefit of reservation under the Act of 1998, the respondent-Board could not have earmarked any post for such category. The petitioner, however, was considered under the category of RBA, but could not make the grade because of his inferior merit vis-à-vis the candidate last selected under RBA category. This, in nutshell, is the reply of the respondents. 10 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that the stand taken by the respondents in the face of the provisions of Act of 1998 read with Government orders (supra) issued by the Social Welfare Department is unexceptionable. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgments of the Supreme Court in case of Mahesh Gupta and others vs Yashwant Kumar, 2007(8), SCC 621; Government of India through Secretary and another vs Ravi Prakash Gupta and another, 2010 (7) 626 and a Division Bench Judgment 5 SWP 3446/2014 c/w SWP 2887/2015 of this Court rendered in the case of Anjeel Kumar and others vs. State of J&K and others, 2015 (2) JKJ 785 is misconceived. The Judgments aforesaid have been decided in a totally different context and, therefore, are clearly distinguishable on facts.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 43 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Govt Of India Th:Secy & Anr vs Ravi Prakash Gupta & Anr on 7 July, 2010

8 The respondents have filed their reply affidavit in SWP No. 3446/2014 and on their request, the reply affidavit filed in the said petition has been treated as reply in the instant petition. 9 In the reply affidavit filed by respondent No.3, the only stand taken to refute the claim of the petitioner for reservation under the category of „persons with disabilities‟ is that as per the Government Order No. 62 -SW of 2001 dated 13.03.2001 read with Government Order No. 231-SW of 2011 dated 22.12.2011, no provision for reservation in favour of persons with disability of „hearing impairment‟ is made insofar as the posts of Jr. Physiotherapist is concerned. It is, thus, submitted that in the absence of identification of posts of Jr. Physiotherapist for the purpose of granting the benefit of reservation under the Act of 1998, the respondent-Board could not have earmarked any post for such category. The petitioner, however, was considered under the category of RBA, but could not make the grade because of his inferior merit vis-à-vis the candidate last selected under RBA category. This, in nutshell, is the reply of the respondents. 10 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that the stand taken by the respondents in the face of the provisions of Act of 1998 read with Government orders (supra) issued by the Social Welfare Department is unexceptionable. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgments of the Supreme Court in case of Mahesh Gupta and others vs Yashwant Kumar, 2007(8), SCC 621; Government of India through Secretary and another vs Ravi Prakash Gupta and another, 2010 (7) 626 and a Division Bench Judgment 5 SWP 3446/2014 c/w SWP 2887/2015 of this Court rendered in the case of Anjeel Kumar and others vs. State of J&K and others, 2015 (2) JKJ 785 is misconceived. The Judgments aforesaid have been decided in a totally different context and, therefore, are clearly distinguishable on facts.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 115 - A Kabir - Full Document

Anjeel Kumar vs State Of J&K on 9 March, 2015

20 It is not the case where the respondents have failed to carry the mandate of law. Right from the year 2011, there has been periodical revision, one made in the year 2013 and one in the year 2014. This updation 10 SWP 3446/2014 c/w SWP 2887/2015 of the list is left to the experts in the domain and the Court cannot substitute its opinion and say that the post of Physiotherapy or for that matter, any particular post should have been identified for giving the benefit of reservation under the Act of 1988 with respect to the disability. As provided in clause (b) of Section 21 of Act of 1998, it is for the Government to undertake periodical review of the list of posts identified and update the same taking into consideration the development in the technology. That being so, it cannot be said that there was some failure or neglect on the part of the respondents to undertake the periodical review. The situation in the case of Anjeel Kumar (supra) was different. The first Government order noted above was issued in the year 2001 and till the year 2011, there was no review/revise of the list of posts identified for the purpose of horizontal reservation envisaged under the Act 1998. From the year 2011 onwards, the Government has not shown any remissness or negligence and has acted as per the mandate of the law. The post of Physiotherapy has now been identified for the purpose of granting the reservation in favour of the persons with disability like hearing impairment and low vision and, therefore, the same will enure to the benefit of those who seek their selection and appointment after promulgation of Government Order 17.06.2014.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - D S Thakur - Full Document
1