JAGDEV SHARMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Rajiv Prashad, Addl. AG, Punjab on instructions from Sada Ram, Superintendent, Grade-I, O/o Chief Engineer, PWD (B&R) Punjab, informs the Court that the 3rd respondent is polio stricken. She was 21 years of age when she was appointed as Junior Draftsman by direct recruitment. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to describe the extent of locomotor disability of the petitioner or how badly it restricts his movements or impairs his professional life and restricts his day to day activities. But I assume that even living with his disability he is stilt able to work enough to gain experience, the moot point canvassed, and look after himself while the 3rd respondent must have a tough time coping with her disability with long years ahead.

(2.) The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner in assailing the appointment of the 3rd respondent is that his client has a rich experience of 21 years to his credit and is better suited and qualified to work as a Junior Draftsman as against the inexperience of the 3rd respondent who is 21 years of age, cuts no ice with this Court when comparing the disability element of both the competitors to the post. Comparative hardship among the differently-abled is a vital factor which can tilt the balance one way or the other in a litigation while the age factor may take a secondary place in the scheme of employment rights guaranteed by the provisions of 'The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995' (1 of 1996). So long as the selection and appointment of the 3rd respondent is not vitiated by illegality, corruption or nepotism or was made contrary to rules then it may not be possible for this Court to go about flawing the appointment and quashing it. It is also not the case that the procedure and criteria for the selection was applied unequally among equals or was misapplied and, therefore, the selection process stands vitiated by error. The 3rd respondent has been working as Junior Draftsman consequent to her selection and offer of appointment vide letter dated November 15, 2011 which she accepted.

(3.) Counsel cites the ruling in Dr. Parikshit Bansal and another v. Union of India and others, 2013 1 SCT 468 and para. 35 within the judgment to contend that when a criteria is determined by the Selection Committee on the date of interview itself then the members of the Selection Committee would be aware in advance of the educational qualifications earned and experience gained by the short-listed candidates who have prior knowledge of coining events and can therefore be a party to a tailor-made selection by inflating marks for interview with the marks assigned for educational qualifications and experience.