ALAKA BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER had filed her candidature for consideration for the post of Sikhya Sahayak (88) under Physically Handicapped category for Basudevpur Block under Bhadrak district in pursuance of an advertisement dated 14.10.2006. As per the advertisement, selection to the post of SS was to be made only on the basis of the marks secured in B.A., B.Ed. Examination. Petitioner claims that she had secured 45.22% of marks in the qualifying examination of B.A., B.Ed. Her name appeared in the provisional list at SL.No.59. She was duly selected for engagement as SS under the Physically Handicapped category & was called upon to sign the agreement. Petitioner accordingly signed the agreement, but was not issued with any engagement letter on the plea that the said list was to be revised as the Orissa Reservation of Vacancies Act had not been followed. Her grievance is that since Physically Handicapped category itself is a reserved category independent of the reservation for the post of S.C., S.T. & SEBC candidates, the authorities published a final select list by giving reservation within reservation & the S.C. & S.T. candidates were accommodated in the vacancies reserved under the Physically Handicapped category & the person having secured lesser marks have been given engagement ignoring her claim.

(2.) RESPONDENTS have disputed the claim of the Petitioner. It is averred in the counter affidavit that no post under the SEBC Female Physically Handicapped category of B. Ed. Pool was to be filled up during the, last selection process of Sikhya Sahayak, 2007 -07. It was on the basis of the Government instruction that different categories, such as, SC, ST, SEBC and UR were to be filled up keeping in view the number of vacancies duly published and as per the guideline, the Physically Handicapped person falling in any of those category was entitled to claim reservation in that category only. It is also submitted that since the panel list has expired with lapse of time of one year the Petitioner has no right to claim any appointment.

(3.) THE State has adopted a policy decision for filling up to reserved posts for handicapped persons in view of enactment of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, (hereinafter to be referred to as "Act, 1995"). In terms of the Act, 1995, the States were obliged to make reservation for handicapped persons. Therefore, the question of making any further reservation on the basis of class, creed or religion ordinarily might not arise as handicapped persons constitute a special class. The object behind rehabilitation of disable persons is to enable them to take fresh task involving physical ability or mental alertness and also to make them economically independent and to develop their own personality and overlook the attitude of the society which looks upon them as an object of charity and pity for the physical deformity he/she suffers from. The advertisement has specifically made special reservation for the handicapped persons irrespective of the category to which they belong whereas various other vacant posts were required to be filled up by SC/ST, OBC/SEBC candidates. However, the advertisement does not further classify the handicapped candidates as belonging to SC/ST, OBC/SEBC and general category candidates. The rule of executive construction has to be kept in mind while considering the impugned advertisement and the selection made by the Government. The interpretations given by the Petitioner to various clauses of the advertisement are inconsistent and devoid of any merit. Petitioner did not keep in mind the rule of executive construction followed by the Department while advertising the vacancies and in the final selection of candidates.