S D SRIDHAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is an Orthopaedically Handicapped person and he belongs to OBC category. The disability of the petitioner is due to post polio paralysis with pelvic obliquity. The disability extent is upto 65%. An advertisement was issued by the second respondent calling for applications for the post of Engineering Assistant Grade II. Petitioner applied for the said post. According to the petitioner 48 candidates applied for the said post and six candidates were found eligible. Respondents 2 and 3 relaxed the conditions of enrolment in terms of annexure-D. According to the petitioner, out of the shortlisted candidates respondent enrolled two candidates. One is appointed in the bangalore office and the other candidate is appointed in the Hyderabad office. Petitioner states that the third respondent on his own accord to help his candidate who had secured just fifty per cent marks had not only relaxed the percentage from 60 to 50 but also ignored those candidates who were outstanding and had secured more than 60 per cent marks. He states that discriminatory treatment is meted out to him in the case on hand. There is no reason as to why the respondents relaxed the conditions. With these allegations petitioner is before me seeking for a direction to quash the impugned order vide Annexure-Af dated 9-9-2002 issued by respondent 2 and direct respondent 1 to grant immediate appointment to the petitioner in the post of Engineering assistant Grade II with effect from the date respondent 4 was selected.

(2.) RESPONDENTS entered appearance. A detailed statement of objections is filed and in the objections statement it is stated that there is no arbitrariness in the relaxation nor any intent to favour any particular candidate much less than that of 4th respondent. It is stated that the relaxation itself was resorted with a view to make the selection process objective and therefore have a wider choice since the post to which the petitioner had applied for belongs to level 2 of scientific/engineering officers (Group (II)) which has as its requirement of a minimum educational qualification combined with work experience. The implication of such relaxation brought in four more candidates within the zone of consideration of different disciplines and therefore in no way could mean to favour any particular candidate much less the 4th respondent. They further say that eligiblity condition may be relaxed in such cases. They rely on the advertisement. They further say that petitioner has not approached them with clean hands. He has been adopting most undesirable methods and indulging in maligning the integrity of the functionaries of the institute and foisting false cases with CBI, Commissioner of Disabilities etc. There is also a complaint against the petitioner in the Sanjaynagar Police Station in February 2001 for disturbing the peace and harmony and for threatening to assault in the residential premises of the Administrative Officer which is produced as Exhibit R. 4. They have also produced Exs. R. 5 to R. 9 letters of apology of the petitioner and a subsequent letter Ex. R. 10. They justify their action.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel, I have carefully perused the material on record. From the material on record, it is seen that an advertisement was issued by the respondents calling for applications for two posts of Engineering Assistant Grade II reserved for orthopaedically handicapped and belonging to OBC category. Petitioner applied for the said post. His application was not considered. Petitioner made a grievance of non-consideration and he was issued with an answer in terms of Annexure-A. They say that the petitioner did not meet the requirement for calling for an interview. Ministry of Personnel has provided reservation for physically handicapped persons as I seem from annexure-R2. It also provides for relaxation of standards in selection of physically handicapped persons against reserved vacancies. Material on record would reveal that with a view to provide wider choice the committee has chosen to relax the marks from 60% to 50% and work experience from 5 to 4 years. This has been termed as arbitrary by the petitioner. The original file was made available. It is seen therefrom that a special clearance drive to fill up 2 Group B backlog vacancies reserved for disabled category (Orthopaedically Handicapped OBC) was launched by advertising in the employment news and the Indian express on all India basis in the month of August 1999 for appointment to the post of Engineering Assistant Grade II in the scale of pay of Rs. 5500-175-9000. The age, qualification and experience prescribed was 43 years (including relaxation) and I class 3 year Diploma in Engineering technology in Civil/electrical/electronics/mechanical/instrumentation/ mettalurgical/chemical/computer Engineering Plus 5 years relevant experience. However, since sufficient number of candidates with I class in 3 year Diploma and with 5 years experience were not available, the competent authority relaxed I Class to II Class 3 year Diploma and 5 years Experience to 4 years. In response to the advertisement, 48 applications were received, but only 9 candidates were shortlisted and called for an interview. A selection committee was constituted and the committee consisted of experts and they have chosen to select respondent 4 in the matter. This in my view cannot be termed as arbitrary in the given circumstances. It cannot be forgotten that the orthopaedically Handicapped persons are to be considered in terms of the reservation policy of the Government. Reservation policy provides for relaxation so also the advertisement. The relaxation has been done with a view to provide wider choice and that cannot be termed as arbitrary as sought to be argued by the petitioner. Selection of the fourth respondent is based on facts and on the basis of the recommendations made by the selection committee. It is fairly well-settled that the selection committee is the best judge in the matter of selection unless the said selection is vitiated either on account of mala fides or any other factor. No such material is placed on record except making a reference that the respondents are interested in fourth respondent. No acceptable material is placed with regard to selection of the fourth respondent on consideration other than merits. In these circumstances, the selection of the fourth respondent cannot be disputed on the facts and circumstances of the case.