RAKESH KUMAR Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Central Poultry Breeding Farm, Chandigarh invited applications for appointment against one temporary post of Poultry Attendant from amongst physically handicapped candidates on 1.6.1998. Consequent upon the process of selection conducted by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the petitioner - Rakesh Kumar came to be appointed against the aforesaid post of Poultry Attendant.

(2.) The selection and appointment of the petitioner against the post of Poultry Attendant was challenged by respondent No. 4, who was also one of the candidates competing for the said post in furtherance of the aforesaid advertisement dated 1.6.1998, but had not been selected. The challenge at the hands of respondent No. 4 to the selection and appointment of the petitioner was based on two pleas. Firstly, that the petitioner was ineligible for selection and appointment to the post of Poultry Attendant in furtherance of the advertisement dated 1.6.1998. It was asserted on behalf of respondent No. 4 that one of the pre-requisite qualifications for appointment against the post of Poultry Attendant was "experience of six months in a poultry farm".

(3.) It was pointed out that the petitioner did not possess the aforesaid qualification and as such, could not be selected and appointed to the post of Poultry Attendant, advertised on 1.6.1998. Secondly, it was asserted by respondent No. 4 that the petitioner cannot be treated as a handicapped candidate. In this behalf, reliance was placed by respondent No. 4 on instructions issued by the Government of India, Department of Personnel & Training vide Office Memorandum No. 36035/5/88-Est.(SCT) dated 4.5.1990, under which a person could be treated as Orthopadically handicapped, only if the concerned person was ".... having minimum of 40% defect or deformity....". Based on the certificate relied upon by the petitioner himself to the effect that he had 18% handicapped, it was asserted that the selection and appointment of the petitioner as a handicapped candidate was in clear violation of the policy instructions issued by the Government of India.