NATH PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Dev Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing counsel.

(2.) Petitioners are physically handicapped due to impairment of hearing. They had applied for Special B.T.C. Training course in response to the advertisement issued in the year 2004. Under 'The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995', reservation for disabled has been provided under Section 33 of the Act which is quoted hereinbelow:-

(3.) It is clear from the perusal of the aforesaid Section that under the disability quota? a further sub division has been made which in three equal proportions. For example, if there are three posts reserved for disabled persons under the Act, one post will go to a blind person, the other post will go to a person with hearing impairment and the third one will go to a person with locomotor disorder. It is clear that the ratio is 1: 1: 1. The opposite parties in the present case failed to mention this reservation in the advertisement and consequently, when the selection was held they provided reservation to disabled persons collectively and not separately as ordained in the aforesaid section 33 of the Act.