ABDUL LATIF Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. J. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Jamoh, learned standing counsel for the Education Department, representing respondent nos.1 and 2, Mr. A. Apang, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. N. Anju, learned standing counsel for the respondent no.3.

(2.) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed (i) for setting aside the result notification dtd. 1/8/2019 in respect of Post of Assistant Professor (Hindi), claiming that the said post is reserved for Persons with Disability (Orthopedically); and (ii) for a direction upon the respondent no.3 to select the petitioner for appointment in the said post.

(3.) In brief, the case of the petitioner is that on 31/5/2018, an employment advertisement was issued by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "APPSC" for short) (i.e. respondent no.3) for filling up 62 (sixty two) posts of Assistant Professor for the Govt. Colleges of Arunachal Pradesh. As per the said advertisement, out of the said 62 posts, 10 (ten) posts were for Assistant Professor (Hindi). Out of the said 10 posts, 1 (one) post was reserved for Persons with Disability (Orthopedically) [hereinafter referred to as PwD(O)]. The petitioner has projected that he is a PwD(O) candidate and possesses the requisite qualification in terms of the said advertisement. Accordingly, the petitioner had offered his candidature for selection and appointment for the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi). The petitioner had appeared for an interview on 1/8/2019 and the results were declared by the respondent no.3 on 1/8/2019 itself. The grievance of the petitioner is that in an illegal and arbitrary manner, the result notification was published and the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi) was carried forward to the next recruitment on the ground that there was no candidate under PwD(O) category. It is projected that the candidature of the petitioner, who had secured 55.25 marks in the interview was ignored as he was not an Arunachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribe (APST) candidate. Accordingly, the petitioner claims that the rejection of his candidature of despite being PwD(O), was in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.