RAJESH KUMAR Vs. HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICSLTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the corrigendum published in the newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' dated 1 -2 -2001 limiting the consideration of physically handicapped candidates for the appointment of Executive Trainee only to the disciplines of Electrical/Mechanical Engineering (Annexure -10 to the writ petition). A further prayer has been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment as an Executive Trainee in Electronic discipline in pursuance of the corrigendum published in the newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' dated 1 -2 -2001 without subjecting the petitioner to a fresh written examination and to grant appointment to the petitioner as such.

(2.) THE petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste and is a physically disabled person having suffered from Polio. True copies of the certificates in this connection are Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition. The petitioner claims to have obtained a Bachelor of Technology Degree in Electronics Engineering from Harcourt Butler Technological Institute, Kanpur and thereafter successfully completed one year Apprenticeship in the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Kanpur Division. In response to an advertisement dated 21 -8 -1999 published in the daily newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' inviting applications from the Engineers for appointment as Executive Trainee, the petitioner also applied. In the written examination held on 9 -1 -2001, the petitioner appeared and having qualified, he was interviewed. However, the petitioner's name was not included in the list of selected candidates and the selected candidates have been granted appointment vide Office Order dated 1 -2 -2000 (Annexure -8 to the writ petition). The petitioner claims that he was the only candidate belonging to the physically handicapped category who had qualified in the written examination and therefore, inaction on the part of the respondents in not declaring the petitioner to have been finally selected, is clearly unjust and thus the respondents are liable to be commanded by a suitable direction to consider him for appointment in this regard.

(3.) MISS Bharti Sapru, learned Counsel who appears for the respondents in response to the aforesaid submissions stated that Section 33 of the Act states that every appropriate Government, shall appoint in every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less than 3% for persons with disabilities. According to learned Counsel, in view of Section 32 of the Act the appropriate Government has first to identify the posts in the establishment which can be reserved for persons with disability, and unless there is such identification no reservation can be made for physically disabled persons. According to learned Counsel the trade of electronic group 'B' has not been identified by the appropriate Government as a post in which reservation for physically handicapped can be given, and therefore, the petitioner could not be considered under the physically handicapped quota. It has been stated in paragraph 14 of the counter -affidavit that the respondents after receiving a notice issued by the Chief Commissioner (Disabilities) on a complaint filed in respect of violation of the provisions of the Act sent a reply to the same.