MUHAMMAD SHAFI BADOO Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent has been preferred by the appellant challenging the order dated 09.04.2003 passed by the learned Writ Court, dismissing his writ petition.

(2.) THE appellant suffers from the disease of Cerebral Palsy ' and has claimed benefits under the handicapped category for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). He is an Engineering (Electrical) Graduate and applied for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in response to Advertisement Notice dated 07.12.1995, issued by the Public Service Commission (for brevity the Commission '). As per the advertisement, 22 posts were advertised in total and 12 out of them belonged to the open merit category. The rest of the 10 posts were to be filled from the reserved categories. The appellant claimed his consideration in the category of handicapped persons and placed reliance on SRO 126 dated 28.6.1994. He appeared in the screening test conducted by the Commission for short listing the candidates but he did not qualify. Accordingly, he was not called for the interview. The appellant claimed that he deserved to be given preferential treatment as per the provisions of SRO 126 dated 28.06.1994.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge non -suited the appellant on the ground that he did not qualify the screening test and therefore in terms of SRO 126 dated 28.06.1994 no benefit could have been given to him. The provision of SRO 126 of 1994 contemplated one concession for person covered by handicapped category namely, that preferential treatment be given to such persons to the extent of 2%. The learned Single Judge on that basis held that the expression preferential treatment ' could only be interpreted to mean that if two persons had same marks then preference is to be given to a handicapped person. The view of the learned Single Judge is discernible from the following paras of the judgment, which are set out below in extenso: