JASWINDER KAUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh on 29.03.2010 (Annexure P-18), whereby an Original Application filed by the petitioner for appointment to the post of Telecom Technical Assistant (TTA) remained unsuccessful.

(2.) On 23.09.2007, an advertisement was published by the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (for short 'the Nigam') inviting applications for the post of Telecom Technical Assistants in the Punjab Telecom Circle. The educational qualification for the said post was (a) three years Engineering Diploma in Telecommunications Engineering / Electronics Engineering / Electrical Engineering / Radio Engineering / Computer Engineering / Instrument Technology; or (b) a candidate possessing higher qualification like B.E. and B.Tech in the same stream; or (c) M.Sc. (Diploma). Out of 36 posts meant for Hoshiarpur District, 3 posts were reserved for Physically Handicapped category, but without specifying as to which category of physically handicapped persons are eligible to apply or for which the posts are reserved. The petitioner, who applied as a physically handicapped candidate, was successful in the examination. The petitioner was called upon to furnish medical fitness certificate. The said communication refers to a letter dated 18.10.2001 determining the posts reserved for Visual, Locomotive and Hearing impaired physical disabled candidates including for the post of Telecom Technical Assistant. The petitioner was declared medically fit with the endorsement to 'consider the case as per Government Rule' vide certificate Annexure P-9 issued by the Civil Surgeon, Hoshiarpur. Circular (Annexure P-10) is the decision dated 18.10.2001, which finds mention in the letter written to the Civil Surgeon for medical examination of the petitioner. As per the opinion of the Civil Surgeon, Hoshiarpur, the right eye of the petitioner is blind and left eye vision is 6/18 i.e. out of 7 lines of the disload vision chart, she can only read upper 4 lines from a distance of 6 meter and that she is found to be visually 40% handicap. Such circular was issued subsequent to a constitution of a Committee to identify posts for the purpose of 3% reservation for physically handicapped persons for all cadres. The post of TTA falls in Category-I. Such post is not reserved for Visual handicapped person, but is reserved for Locomotive handicapped person such as one armed affected; both legs affected, but no arms; & limited exercise to tolerance etc. The partial deaf persons were also eligible under the Hearing Disability category. However, reservation was provided for Visual Impaired candidates in Category-II posts consisting of Stenographer/ Personal Assistants as well as Category-III consisting of Translator, Peon and Sweeper. The Circular dated 18.10.2001 was subsequently amended on 21.04.2003 (Annexure P-11), when reservation for Visual Impaired candidates was fixed in certain other categories of posts falling in Category II.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner was offered appointment against one of the post reserved for Visually Handicapped. The post is reserved for Physically Handicapped category, therefore, she could not be denied appointment when the Civil Surgeon has reported her 40% visually handicap.