SAROJ DEHARIYA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition filed by Saroj Dehariya seeks to challenge the final result of Civil Judge Class-II (Entry Level) Examination, 2018 declared by the Registrar (Exam), High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur (respondent No.4) vide notification dated 21.08.2019 (Annexure-P/6) to the extent of non-selection and consequential denial of appointment to the petitioner on the post of Civil Judge Class-II (Entry Level) in the Physically Handicapped quota (Scheduled Caste category).

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents No.3 & 4 floated advertisement dated 17.12.2018 (Annexure-P/1) notifying total 190 posts for appointment of Civil Judge Class-II (Entry Level). The category-wise break-up of such posts is as follow:

(3.) Mr. Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents No. 3 & 4 in the previous examination for appointment on the post of Civil Judge Class-II (Entry Level) had selected one Chetna Dashora under the Physically Handicapped quota in Open/General Category even though she had secured only 261 marks as against cut off marks of 288 in that category. It is thus clear that she had scored much lesser marks than the last general category candidate, yet she was appointed by extending her the benefit of horizontal reservation. In the preset case, the petitioner acquired 189 out of 400 marks in the main written examination and his final score after interview was 224 marks out of 450 marks, which was more than 45% of total marks, prescribed as the minimum qualifying marks for Scheduled Caste Category as per the advertisement. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the explanation given by the respondents for not applying the same principle to the case of the petitioner is wholly untenable. What the respondents have contended that at the time when Chetna Dashora was selected, the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short the "Act of 1995") was in force and therein there was no method of inter-exchange of unfilled seats of one category of physically handicapped candidates with another category and for carrying forward of the unfilled vacancy to the next year. It is argued that such interpretation placed by the respondents on the provisions of the Act of 1995 is not only contrary to the intention of the legislature but is also defeating the very purpose of the Act of 2016, which being a piece of social welfare legislation conferring rights on physically handicapped persons, shall have to be given purposive interpretation and must be implemented in its letter and spirit.