KAMAL KRISHNA MISHRA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B.D. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. RKD Choudhury, learned Senior Government Advocate and Mr. R. Dhar, learned Senior Government Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 4 as well as Mr. F.U. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 and 6.

(2.) The adjudication of the present appeal has narrowed down substantially in view of the stand now taken by the State Respondents. As on date, the appellant Kamal Krishna Mishra is discharging duties as Sub-Inspector, Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, on his provisional appointment as such following this Court's Order dated 17.02.2017. The facts of the present case vis-a-vis the relevant provisions under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, leading to the interim direction for appointing the appellant, has been usefully delineated in the order of this Court dated 17.02.2017. The relevant portion of the said order is extracted hereunder: "2. The appellant here is a visually impaired person and he is aggrieved by the dismissal of the WP(C) No.2638/2012, whereby his claim for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Food & Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, was not accepted. The candidate applied for the benefit under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 [hereinafter referred to as "the 1995 Act"] but as the selection process was confined to only those, with locomotor disability, the candidature of the visually impaired candidate, was not considered.

(3.) Mr. P.K. Goswami, the learned Sr. Counsel submits that appropriate amendment of the writ petition was allowed on 31.10.2014, to challenge the restrictive recruitment exercise confined to only the orthopedically impaired category but the learned Court erroneously noted that the restrictive selection was not challenged by the writ petitioner. This is how, a mistake was committed and the writ petition was dismissed notwithstanding the 1/3rd right of the visually impaired category, under Section 33 of the 1995 Act.