SHYAM NARAIN TIWARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Public Service Commission, U. P. Allahabad (in brief the Commission) issued an advertisement No. A- 7-E-1/97-98 on 31-12-1997 inviting applications for 144 posts of Child Development Project Officer (Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari ). THE petitioner being qualified and eligible applied in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement and claimed reservation as physically handicapped candidate. He submitted a certificate showing that he was physically handicapped person. THE written examination was held on 11- 4-1998 to 13-4-1998. THE petitioner was declared successful in the written examination with roll No. 022666 and was called for the interview. After the interview was over, the Commission declared the result. THE Commission sent its recommendation to the State Government for appointing 122 candidates for plain cadre and another 22 candidates were recommended for hill cadre on 10-12-1998. THE petitioner was a candidate of plain cadre. He secured total 599 marks in written examination and interview and Ms. Shriddha Katiyar was recommended at serial No. 1 in the merit list of physically handicapped candidates for appointment. Sri Anil Kumar and the petitioner had secured 599 marks each. THE name of Sri Anil Kumar was recommended at serial No. 2 for appointment as physically handicapped candidate as only 2 vacancies were reserved under the physically handicapped category by the Commission. THE petitioner's name was not recommended though he had secured equal marks alongwith Sri Anil Kumar. THE said Sri Anil Kumar who had secured higher marks in written test had to be placed higher in the merit list.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioners on the ground that the Commission had illegally applied only 2% reservation quota for physically handicapped candidates though as per The Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependants of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) (Amendment) Act, 1997, U. P. Act No. 6 of 1997 which was published in U. P. Gazette Extraordinary on 31st July, 1997 provided for 3% reservation for physically handicapped candidates.

(3.) U. P. Act No. 6 of 1997 has amended Section 3 of the principal Act, U. P. Act No. 4 of 1993 and now under the physically handicapped category 3% vacancy had been reserved. This question had been considered by this Court in Dr. Ravindra Kumar Pandey v. State of U. P. & Ors. , 2006 (3) ESC 1880 (DB), wherein this Court had considered the effect of amendment made in Section 3 of the principal Act and had laid down the law as to how the vacancy of physically handicapped candidates had to be worked out and how horizontal reservation for physically handicapped candidates had to be applied. The Court has held as under : ". . . . . . . From the amendment introduced by U. P. Act No. 6 of 1997 it appears obvious that the State in keeping with the Central enactment provided reservation for physically handicapped incorporating the provision of one percent for each category of physically handicapped. Even though the State Act has not specifically provided that three percent of the vacancies shall be reserved for physically handicapped but the two enactments the Central and State dealing with the same subject and the Central Act having directed every appropriate Government to provide not less than three percent for physically handicapped, the State enactment has to be read as providing three percent reservation for physically handicapped. . . . . " The Court has further held that : ". . . . . It is only those persons who suffer from the disability mentioned in the Section who are entitled to claim reservation. The extent of protection has been determined by Central Legislature by directing that it should not be less than three percent. Who would be entitled for such benefit is mentioned and one percent has been marked for each category of disability. Therefore, reservation for physically handicapped has to be worked out on three percent at the stage of direct reservation in public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State. . . . . " The controversy involved in this petition is covered by the decision in Dr. Ravindra Kumar Pandey case (supra ).