STATE OF U.P. Vs. DEENANATH PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Shri A.K. Goyal, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the appellant. Shri Ashok Khare, Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Siddharth Khare appears for the petitioner-respondent.

(2.) The appeal is reported to be beyond time by 88 days. There is no serious objection to the grounds taken in the application for condonation of delay. We also find that the explanation for condonation of delay is good and sufficient. The application for condonation of delay is allowed. The matter was heard.

(3.) The petitioner-respondent is a differently abled person with hearing impairment of more than 45%.? He applied in pursuance to the advertisement for selection as Village Development Officer on the post reserved for Physically Disabled Persons under the U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Physically Disabled, Dependent of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993 providing for 3% reservation for physically disabled persons, which includes the persons with hearing impairment.? The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules, 1996 provides for hearing impairment of 45% to be? categorised as physically disabled person suffering with hearing impairment for receiving consideration for appointment in the quota reserved for physically handicapped persons.