JAGJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a physically challenged person. He has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of mandamus to the State to appoint him on one of the vacant posts of Teaching Fellows under the Physically Handicapped Category. When appointment was denied, the petitioner approached this Court through CWP No.14427 of 2011. The Court was of opinion that the prayer was covered by the decision of this Court rendered in CWP No.12886 of 2010 (Jagjit Kaur & ors. vs. State of Punjab & ors.). In Jagjit Kaur's case, this Court held that physically challenged persons were entitled to appointment by applying the principles laid down in Clause 6 of the Govt. letter dated May 2, 1997 which entitled them to be considered against unfilled vacancies of the recruitment process initiated in the year 2007, which is the same recruitment process under consideration in this case. In Jagjit Kaur's case, the respondent State was directed to consider the cases of the petitioners therein for appointment within one month. Thereafter, several writ petitions were filed claiming the same relief. Those were disposed of in the same terms. CWP No.14427 of 2011 filed by the petitioner was allowed and the Court held that the petitioner's case is squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment in Jagjit Kaur's case and a direction was issued that the case of the petitioners therein would be considered for appointment, if any vacancy is available, subject to their merit and rank determined in the selection process and other eligibility criteria standing fulfilled. It was further directed that the said process be completed within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order which is dated August 9, 2011. After expiration of more than a year, the District Education Officer (DEO), Ludhiana, passed an order on December 12, 2012 ordering on the administrative side that in case candidates with higher merit do not join the posts and the posts remain vacant in the physically challenged category then the name of the petitioner will be considered for issuance of offer letter. The order is placed on record as Annexure P-7. Since the petitioner had no information on availability of posts, he sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to supply him information if any vacancy in the physically challenged quota is still available. The District Education Officer informed the petitioner vide Annexure P-8 dated March 1, 2013 that 8 candidates have been offered appointment under the physically handicapped quota. Those 8 persons were named in letter dated April 12, 2013 (Annexure P-9).

(2.) It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that 38 posts were earmarked amongst physically handicapped category out of which half had to go to women and half to men as per quota allocated. Therefore, 19 vacancies were to be filled from amongst the special category. If only 8 posts were filled then 11 vacancies were still available for offer. This was sequitur. The submission presently is to accommodate the claim of the petitioner against an available vacancy after receipt of RTI disclosures. Aggrieved, the petitioner submitted a representation to the department dated April 29, 2013 [Annexure P-10] reminding the office that as per the information received from the department itself under RTI Act, there were sufficient vacancies available to accommodate the claim on merit which would bring the petitioner within the zone of consideration of 19 vacant posts of physically handicapped persons going abegging and therefore, he may be offered appointment in view of order dated December 12, 2012 (Annexure P-7). When no action was taken on the representation, the petitioner was left with no other remedy except to prefer the present petition before this Court.

(3.) On notice being issued, respondent-State has filed a reply.