UNION OF INDIA Vs. R.RAJEEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Original Petition (CAT) is filed challenging the order dated 31.07.2019 in O.A.No.664/2017 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Bench. That Original Application was filed by the respondents herein seeking an order to the effect that they were entitled to be considered for the carry forward vacancies reserved for those with handicaps in categories other than those with an orthopaedic handicap. The respondents are persons with orthopaedic handicaps.

(2.) Three posts were reserved for the appointment of persons with disabilities in terms of the provisions contained in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1995 Act' for the sake of brevity). These three posts were for (i) persons with blindness or low vision;(ii) persons with hearing impairment; and (iii) for those having a locomotor disability (orthopaedic handicap). Though the aforesaid Act of 1995 has been repealed by The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the claim of the respondents is liable to be considered in terms of the 1995 Act. The Tribunal has found, on facts that three posts of Post Master Gr.I were reserved for appointment of persons with disabilities. In the limited departmental competitive examination conducted in the year 2013, the respondents had been declared successful. As only one amongst three vacancies were reserved for persons with orthopaedic handicaps, the respondents did not get selected as there was one person, who was ranked above them, who got selected in the one post reserved for the Orthopedically handicapped. As the other two vacancies were for persons with visual handicap and hearing handicap, these vacancies were unfilled and carried forward to the next recruitment year. The respondents were qualified in the limited departmental competitive examination in the year 2014 as well and amongst the candidates, who appeared, the present respondents were only two persons, who qualified again in the category of those having Orthopedic handicaps. The Tribunal relied on provisions of paragraph 16 of O.M.No.36035/3/2004-Estt(Res) of Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training dated, 29.12.2005 and found that in the absence of candidates of the specified handicap in a particular year, such vacancies have to be carried forward and if in the next year also such vacancy cannot be filled by a suitable person having the specified handicap, then such vacancies can be offered to persons having a handicap or disability other than the specified handicap or disability.

(3.) The learned Asst. Solicitor General appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend on the basis of Annexure-A9 order issued by the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities that the said authority had found that the respondents had no claim for being appointed against vacancies reserved for other categories of handicapped persons and that the vacancies had to be carried forward. He submits that the Tribunal was therefore not justified in granting the reliefs sought for in the Original Application as the competent authority under the 1995 Act had rejected the claim of the respondents. Sri. M.R. Hariraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity and that the same was completely justified in terms of office memorandum referred to in the order of the Tribunal.