ANIL KUMAR GIRI Vs. VICE CHANCELOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ appeal has been filed by the original petitioner challenging the order dated 30. 07. 08 passed in w. P. No. 7740/07 (s) whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition.

(2.) THE facts leading to the present case are that the present appellant filed a petition challenging the advertisements issued by the respondents to fill up the posts of Training Associates. The two advertisements were issued 13-19th on 06. 12. 05 (Annexure P/3) and May, 2006 (Annexure P/4) to the petition. The said advertisements were challenged on the ground that the petitioner being physically handicapped candidate and no reservation up to the extent of 6% has been provided, therefore, the respondents are not justified in filling up the vacancies without there being a reservation up to 6% for physically handicapped candidates. On the basis of the aforesaid grievance the petitioner claimed the following reliefs in the writ petition which are as under:-

(3.) RESPONDENTS were noticed and it was the stand taken by the respondents that reservation has been provided up to the extent of 6% in the appointment of Class II, III and Class iv cadre for handicapped persons and the vacancies towards these categories are to be filled up by direct recruitment. It was also submitted that the physically handicapped persons for whom the 6% reservation was made could not reach to the point of reservation, therefore it was not possible for the respondents to fill up the vacancies. Thus, it was the stand that there had been reservation up to 6%. It was also the stand of the respondents that petitioner was intimated by letter dated 04. 05. 07 (Annexure P/6-A) that no one has been selected under the handicapped category and as a consequence of the same, no person towards the 6% handicapped category could be appointed.