DHARMINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who claims to be physically handicapped submitted an application dated February 21, 1995, to the State Transport Commissioner for appointment to the post of Assistant District Transport Officer. Vide letter dated April 19, 1995, the authority informed him that the ''posts of Assistant District Transport Officer are to be filled up in the near future through Punjab Subordinate Service Selection Board. So, you can apply to the S.S.S. Board at the appropriate time''. Aggrieved by this communication, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. He prays that the letter dated April 19, 1995, by which the State Transport Commissioner had informed him that he can apply to the Subordinate Services Selection Board may be quashed and that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondent to consider his claim for appointment to the post of Assistant District Transport Officer without subjecting him to the rigour of selection by the Board.

(2.) The respondents contest the petitioner's claim. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that 14 posts of Assistant District Transport Officers which are to be filled up by direct recruitment have been notified to the Subordinate Services Selection Board. An advertisement has been issued. In terms of the policy of the State Government, one per cent of the posts under the State are reserved for the blind and deaf and another one per cent for the orthopaedically handicapped persons. For this purpose, a 100 point roster is maintained. The vacancies falling at point No. 11 is reserved for the blind and the deaf and point No. 71 is reserved for the orthopaedically handicapped persons. At present, there is no reserved point earmarked for the orthopaedically handicapped persons. Consequently, the petitioner has no right to claim appointment to one of the posts merely on account of his being a physically handicapped person. The respondents consequently pray that the writ petition be dismissed.

(3.) The petitioner has filed additional affidavit to contend that the roster point reserved for the blind and the deaf is inter-changeable with that for the orthopaedically handicapped persons. It has been further claimed that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointed against roster point No. 11.