EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CUMAPPOINTING AUTHORITY KARNATA Vs. MALLIKARJUNA REVANASIDDAPPA HADIMANI KHERDA POST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 26.03.2016 passed by the State Commissioner for Physically Handicapped - (respondent No.3) directing the petitioner to appoint the respondent No.1 to the post of Lecturer in Social Science, pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 27.04.2011. The said direction is issued by respondent No.3 since they had not provided for reservation to physically handicapped persons and the respondent No.1 who suffers from Loco motor disability was denied the opportunity of being appointed.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No.1 was no doubt in service as on the date of promulgation of the Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulation, 2011. However, the petitioner was not entitled to grant of weightage as ordered by a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court as he had not satisfied the requirement. In that view, the marks as secured in the examination was reckoned and the percentage of the respondent No.1 being 47.8625 is less than the cut off percentage of the last SC candidate who had secured 65.80250 and as such he was not selected. It is further contended that the reservation as sought for each category cannot be provided. The objection as filed before the respondent No.3 to that effect is referred. In that view the order of respondent No.3 - Commission is assailed.

(3.) The respondent has filed detailed objection statement seeking to put forth the same contentions which had been urged before the respondent No. The contention essentially is that Section 34 of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 ('PWD' Act for short) provides for reservation and the respondent No.1 being a person belonging to Schedule Caste category, with loco motor disability was entitled to be selected if reservation was provided to the physically handicapped, irrespective of the cut off percentage obtained by the last Schedule Caste candidate to which reference is presently made by the petitioner. Since such reservation as provided under the Act was not made, the respondent No.1 had approached the respondent No.3, who is the competent authority under the Act. In that light with reference to the notification dated 27.04.2011 and the number of posts for which application was called would point out that no reservation was made either for the post concerned or for the post of Warden to which post also the respondent No.1 had applied. In that view, it is contended that the respondent No.3 after appreciating these aspects has passed the order which is in accordance with law.