DHARMINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a graduate and belongs to the physically handicapped category, submitted a representation in the year 1995 to the State Transport Commissioner-respondent No. 2 for appointment to the post of Assistant District Transport Officer which fell vacant from the quota of physically handicapped persons and giving him appointment as such. He submitted a reminder on 4.4.1995. The State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, vide letter dated 19.4.1995 (Annexure P-4) informed the petitioner that the post of Assistant District Transport Officer is to be filled in the near future through the Punjab Subordinate Selection Board and therefore, he could apply at the appropriate time to the Board.

(2.) Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached this Court by filing C.W.P. No. 10883 of 1995 praying for quashing of the Communication dated 19.4.1995 on the ground that as per the Punjab Government Circular dated 24.4.1986, the Appointing Authority was to adjudge the suitability of the persons belonging to the handicapped category and it shall not be necessary to get the approval of the Subordinate Services Selection Board or the Departmental Selection Committee, as the case may be, nor would the registration of the Employment Exchange be required for making such an appointment on the basis of priority list against Class III and Class IV posts for service. In the priority list, the handicapped category is mentioned at Sr.No. 6 and thus, the contention of the petitioner was that since he was covered by the said instructions of 1986, he was not required to go through the selection process to be followed by the Subordinate Services Selection Board. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 10. 12.1996 by holding that the directions sought by the petitioner could not be issued to the Appointing Authority as it would be in total violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India which guarantees equality of opportunity in the matters of employment to posts under the State.

(3.) Therefore, the petitioner preferred a Letters Patent Appeal No. 54 of 1997, which came up for hearing before the Division Bench on 3.5.2004 which upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge and further added that even against the posts reserved for physically handicapped persons, all the eligible candidates have an equal right to compete and merely because the petitioner, who having come to know about the availability of some vacancy, applied for appointment against the same, has no superior or preferential right to seek appointment without living an opportunity to compete to other eligible and similarly situated candidates. A specific contention was raised by the counsel for the petitioner in the above-stated Letters Patent Appeal that in view of the Government instructions dated 24.4.1986, a direction may be issued to fill up the post of Assistant District Transport Officer from amongst the physically handicapped persons without asking them to undergo the test of suitability to be conducted by the Subordinate Services Selection Board or the Departmental Selection Committee, as the case may be. This contention was rejected by the Division Bench of this Court by holding as follows.