MATIOUR RAHMAN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue raised in this petition pertains to the areas employment under the persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of rights and Full participation) Act, 1995 (Act I of 1996) in the following circumstances.

(2.) The Assam Public Service Commission, hereinafter referred to as the Commission, issued notification inviting applications from eligible persons for the combined competitive (Preliminary) Examination, 1996 for screening candidates so as to enable them to appear in the combined competitive (Main) Examination, 1996 for recruitment to the Assam Civil Service and other allied services. Petitioner also submitted application accompanied with requisite testimonials including a Certificate certifying/testifying the petitioner as physically handicapped person with locomotor disability in the absence of a fore-arm below the elbow. The Commission after scrutinising the applications called upon the eligible candidates including the petitioner to appear in the Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination, 1996 which was to be held on 6.7.97. The results of the combined competitive (Preliminary) Examination, 1996 was declared by the Commission showing the names of those persons who qualified in the preliminary examination to appear in the Main Examination. Roll No. 3926 against which the petitioner appeared, was also declared to have been qualified in the preliminary examination to appear in the combined competitive (Main) examination along with others. In due course, Admission Certificates for appearing in the combined competitive (Main) Examination were issued. The petitioner received one such admission Certificate admitting him to the combined competitive (Main) Examination, 1996 with the Roll No. 3926. The petitioner appeared in all the papers of the said Main examination. The result of the combined competitive (Main) examination was declared by the Commission on 5.9.98 and the result sheet showing the roll numbers of those candidates who qualified in the written examination to appear in the interview/viva voce to be held on October, 1998 was published by the Commission. Roll No. 3926 against which the petitioner appeared in the written combined competitive (Main) examination, did not figure in the result sheet. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the above action of the respondents/authorities for not declaring him as a person qualified in the aforesaid Main examination depriving him from appearing in the interview/viva-voce on the teeth of the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1995 under which three percent of the vacancies in every establishment was required to be kept reserved for persons with disabilities and out of which one percent was to be reserved for persons with locomotor disability. The petitioner further asserted that he being the only candidate with locomotor disability who had applied for recruitment to the Assam Civil Service and other alied services, it was incumbent on the part off the respondent/authorities to declare him as qualified for the interview out of the percentage reserved for persons with such types of disability. The petitioner, therefore, moved this Court by way of this writ petition seeking, amongst others, a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to implement the scheme of three percent reservation for the disabled persons as per the mandate of the Act, 1955; and further commanding the respondents/Commission to issue call letter to the petitioner for appearing in the interview/ viva-voce and for taking any other necessary steps as may be deemed fit and proper.

(3.) The State of Assam as well as the Assam Public Service Commission contested the case and submitted their affidavit-in-opposition, respectively. The Commission in its affidavit stated that the petitioner could not succeed in the combined competitive (Main) Examination, 1996. The Commission also stated that it did not give any special preference to the petitioner while evaluating his answer scripts so much so that the State Government did not make any provision for reservation to the physically handicapped category of candidates in their requisition letter as well as in the draft advertisement forwarded to the Commission. The performance of the petitioner was evaluated as a general category candidate. The commission was not the authority to make any reservation for any special category of persons until the Governmental authority made any provision for such reservation in the draft advertisement. The Commission reiterated that in the requisition for selection of candidates and/or holding of combined competitive examination as well as in the draft advertisement, the State Government did not make any reservation for the physically handicapped category of persons. It also stated that it did not seek for information from the candidates as to whether they belonged to the physically handicapped category of persons or not in the absence of reservation for such category of persons in that year as was stated/mentioned in the requisition from the State Government or the draft advertisement.