- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- 31 October 2007
Headnote
.
~A S@rvic~ Lqw-:-:Reservatiqn-Far Physically handicapped persons-Selection-For Class III posts-2% posts reserved for physically handicappgd-=Single Physically handiq9.p.v.e,d person applied and appeared in rg~ruitmgnt !~~(,.,.-lp,et;#edappointment-lfeld: The applicant was ~~titled to be appointed ag_fl.~n~{ ~'1f· ~r:s::;·ved po~·t, being the only candidate. ·
~9 p9,sfs m wer~ ?PV~rti~~d for Class III Posts in Bulandshahr Judg@§llip V:ri: Ap.p~•l~nt (a blind man) appeared in recruitment test, btJt W3S not selected. He filed Writ Petition. Single Judge of 1' High.Court directed his appointment, but the same was set aside by Division Bench of High Court. Hence the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: By G.O. dated 26.08.1993 U.P. Government has reserved 2% posts for physically handicapped persons for direct recruitment in all groups of Government services. The physically handicapped persons are thos~ whg 3f~ blind, deaf and dumb and otherwise handicapped. There were altogether 30 posts for which the selection was held. 2 per cent of30 is 0.6. Since 0.6 is more than half it is rounded off and held that one out of the 30 posts is reserved for physically handicapped persons. Since there was no other physically handicapped per~1m_ wtio ~pplied, the appellant was ~ntitled to the post reserv'ed for physically handicapped persons. The ;tppellant is already working on the post in view of the interim order of this Court. Hence he shall be regularized.
[Paras 3 and 5) [731-E, F, G; 732-A)
tltlUi..n._,,__ -·'"A'T'TTTJl ·- [MARKANUt Y l\1-\.1 Ju,,,.1
Headnote as published in the Digital Supreme Court Reports by the Supreme Court of India. Paragraph references point to the judgment below.
Judgment
MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. 1. This appeal has been filed ag~inst c; the impugned judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 23.05.2001 in Special Appeal No. 445 of 2001. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
¶2The appellant is a blind man. He appeared in the recruitment test held in the year 1992 for selecting candidates for Class-III Posts in Bulandshahr Judgeship in U.P. However, he was riot selected and hence he filed a writ petition which was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court by his judgment dated 25.09.1997. Against that judgment the State Government filed a letters patent appeal which has been allowed by the impugned judgment by the Division Bench. Hence this appeal.
¶3The appellant has relied on G.O. dated 26.08.1993 which is Annexure P-I to this appeal. That G.O. states that the U.P. Government has reserved 2 per cent posts for physically handicapped persons for direct recruitment' in all groups of Government services. The physically handicapped persons are those who are blind, deaf and dumb and otherw·ise handicapped. There were altogether 30 posts for which the selection was held. 2 per cent of 30 is 0.6. Since 0.6 is more than half we round it off and hold that one out of the 30 posts is reserved for physically handicapped persons. Since there was no other physically handicapped person who applied, in our opinion, the appellant was entitled to the post reserved for physically handicapped persons.
¶4In this v.iew of the matter, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment of the Division Bench is set aside and it is directed that the appellant be appointed on a Class-III Post in Bulandshahr Judgeship forthwith.
¶5We are infonned that the appellant is already working on the post in view of the interim order of this Court. J:Ience he shall be regularized and allowed to continue working as a regular Class-III employee and shall be given all the consequential bene~~· )..,_ K.K.T. "' Appeal allowed.
':
'
I J ;;
p ,,, I
Case details
Arising from
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6168 of 2001.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 23,5,2001 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 445 of200I.
Appearances
Gaurav Jain and Abha Jain for the Appellant.
Ashok K. Srivastava for the Respondent.
Source: Supreme Court of India, Digital Supreme Court Reports, via the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open dataset (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.