RAMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly Mandamus, directing the respondents to give employment to the petitioner from the disabled quota after relaxing his age to the post of Tabla Player/Caner in the office of Director, Social Welfare, Punjab, Chandigarh. The petitioner passed his 10+2 examination and also received training of Tabla player/Caner from Governing Training Institute for Adult Blind, Sonepat, Haryana. As the petitioner belongs to Punjab, on 8.10.1996 having attained the above educational expertise, got his name registered in the Employment Exchange, Moga for the post of Tabla Player and Caner. Certain posts in that field were advertised and names were called from the Employment Exchange. On 20.1.1997 the petitioner was interviewed by the Director, Social Welfare, Punjab Chandigarh, and was selected for the post of Tabla Player and Caner. The Director, Social Welfare, Punjab, Chandigarh is stated to have recommended the case of the petitioner for the post of Tabla Player or Class-IV post to the Deputy Commissioner, Moga. The copy of the said letter is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure P/2. The recommendation was against 1% reservation of visually handicapped. The matter was kept pending for a considerable period and appointment letter was not issued to the petitioner who claimed that he was pursuing the same but of no result. However, vide letter dated 15.2.2001 the petitioner was informed that he was not eligible for the appointment because his age was more than 45 years on that date. Aggrieved from the said order, the petitioner served upon the respondents a notice through his counsel dated 9.4.2001, copy whereof is annexed to the petition as Annexure P/4 informing them the detailed facts and that no fault was attributable to him and as such the petitioner should be granted appointment. Having failed to receive any appropriate reply to the said notice, the petitioner has filed this petition.

(2.) Upon notice, the respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed reply. The facts are hardly in controversy. It is admitted that the petitioner belongs to the category of blind/low vision and 1% reservation is provided for in such employment. The respondents have placed on record letter dated 21.4.1997 addressed to the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, by the Director, Social Security and Women & Child Development Department, Punjab, Chandigarh recommending the name of the petitioner under that quota and requesting them to issue a letter of appointment. This letter has been annexed to the reply as Annexure R-1/3, which reads as under :-

(3.) It is also not disputed in the reply that the petitioner is resident of Punjab and satisfied all the requisite qualifications at the time of his selection. The only contention raised before us is that in furtherance to the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Harcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, Civil Writ Petition No. 14167 of 1997, the Government had issued new instructions on 31.8.1999, copy of which is annexed to the reply as Annexure R/2, changing the recruitment policy and providing that recruitment of such posts should be made through special Employment Exchange in the News Papers by the respective departments.