LALLAN YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel on behalf of respondents no.1, 2 and 3 and Sri K.K. Singh on behalf of respondents no.4 and 5.

(2.) WITH consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage and without issuing notice to the respondents no.6 and 7 in view of the nature of the order which is being passed.

(3.) THE petitioner claims to have been working as Class IV employee on contract basis in Jalkal Department in Nagar Palika Parishad, Ghazipur since year 2004. It is stated that the petitioner is a handicapped person and his disability is 70%. The case of the petitioner is that there are 108 sanctioned posts of Class IV employees in Nagar Palika Parishad, Ghazipur and out of which 55 posts are non -technical post, which come within the purview of reservation for handicapped persons as per provisions of Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is stated that applying 3% reservation to 55 non -technical posts, 2 posts would be available for being filled up by handicapped persons. The case of the petitioner is that one Mazahar Hasan -respondent no.6 is already working on one of these two posts and one post under handicapped quota is still vacant. When the respondents did not consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment against the said post, he approached the Commissioner under Section 62 of the Act. In the said proceedings, the respondents have filed their reply in which it is admitted that out of 55 non -technical posts 2 posts are reserved for being filled up by handicapped persons. However, it was stated before the Commissioner that 2 handicapped persons are already working and, therefore, the claim of the petitioner was denied by order dated 15.09.2010 impugned in the present writ petition. The Commissioner, believing the version of the respondents as correct, rejected the claim made by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the order dated 15.9.2010 passed by the Commissioner and also for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise his services against one substantive post, which is available for being filled up under the handicapped quota.