SIDDHARTH SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order because common questions of law arise for decision in all these writ petitions.

(2.) THE relevant facts briefly are that the Madhya Pradesh Public service Commission (for short 'the MPPSC) published an advertisement dated 4-3-2007 inviting applications for recruitment to 240 posts of Civil Judge Class ii. In the advertisement, it was indicated that 2% of the 240 posts advertised, which works out to 5 posts, are reserved for orthopaedically handicapped persons. In response to the advertisement, the petitioners who claim to be orthopaedically handicapped persons filed applications along with certificates showing the percentage of disability suffered by them. After the written test and interview, they were selected and placed in the merit list of orthopaedically handicapped candidates by the MPPSC. The MPPSC then sent the merit list of orthopaedically handicapped candidates along with other merit lists to the State government for appointment. When the recommendations of the MPPSC of the selected candidates were before the State Government, representations were received that some of the petitioners were not entitled to be appointed to the posts reserved for orthopaedically handicapped persons considering the percentage of disability suffered by them.

(3.) OUT of the first five candidates in the merits list of orthopaedically handicapped candidates, Siddharth Shrivastava and Krishna Gopal Rathore were found by the State Government to be not suffering 40% disability whereas the meaning three candidates were found to be suffering from more than 40% disability. As a consequence, the State Government declined to appoint siddharth Shrivastava and Krishna Gopal Rathore to the post of Civil Judge class II reserved for orthopaedically handicapped persons and Siddharth shrivastava and Krishna Gopal Rathore have filed W. P. No. 6722/2008 and w. P. No. 8751/2008 (S), respectively challenging the aforesaid decision of the state Government. Abhilash Jain and Ku. Babita Hora have filed W. P. No. 1777/2008 and W. P. No. 9114/2008 respectively claiming that in the event siddharth Shrivastava and Krishna Gopal Rathor are not appointed against two posts of Civil Judge Class II reserved for orthopaedically handicapped persons, the State Government should appoint them in the two posts as they are orthopaedically handicapped persons with 40% disability. Ashish Persai has also filed W. P. No. 12405/2008, and his case is that on account of interim order passed by this Court restraining the State Government from making any appointment to the post reserved for physically handicapped persons, he has not been issued with appointment order although his position is 133 in the merit list. Mohd. Aslam Dehalvi has filed W. P. No. 374/2008 claiming that considering the marks secured by him in the selection conducted by the MPPSC, he is entitled to be appointed on a post reserved for orthopaedically handicapped person. Dharam Pal Singh Punia has filed W. P. No. 10337/2008 making a similar claim that he is entitled to be appointed to one of the posts reserved for orthopaedically handicapped persons.