AKHILESH KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions have been filed by one and same petitioner involving common question of law, hence, they are being decided together by a common Judgment.

(2.) The petitioner is a handicapped person. An advertisement, was published in the year 1999, inviting the applications from eligible candidates for Special B.T.C. Training for the purpose of making appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools, run by the U.P. Basic Education Board. In the advertisement, it was mentioned that the reservation would be made as per the Government policy. However, in the Proforma application form, Column No. 7 related for claiming the benefit of reservation pertaining to the candidates of reserved category. In the column, only the categories mentioned were Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward classes, Ex-Army Men and Dependent of Freedom Fighters. But, there was no column pertaining to physically handicapped persons. The petitioner did not mention that he is physically handicapped person in the prescribed application form instead he claimed to be dependent of serviceman.

(3.) According to the petitioner, even though in the application form there was no mention for claiming reservation for physically handicapped person, yet, alongwith application form, he had sent the certificate dated 8.9.1997 issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Ambedkar Nagar. It appears that his case was considered under the general category candidates, in as much as, he had not claimed any benefit of reservation available to physically handicapped person in the application form. He had obtained 46.43 quality point marks and was not selected for Special B.T.C. Training. Subsequently, the State Govt. by way of general order which was given wide publicity through the newspaper, invited the application/representation from the aggrieved candidates for redressed of their relevance, and permitted to file certificate in proof of their claim.