PRITI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners p icipated in the selection process under the Handicapped Category for selection of the candidates for J&K; Combined Services (Mains) Examination as per SRO 161 of 1995 carried out by the Public Service Commission. Admittedly, the petitioners had successfully qualified the preliminary test and, thereafter, competed in the Mains Examination. Since the petitioners could not make the grade in the Main Examination, therefore, they were not called for interview. Being aggrieved of the same, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition.

(2.) AT this stage, Mr. Siddiqui, learned Counsel for petitioners, seeks deletion of the name of petitioner No. 2 from the writ petition. The prayer made is allowed and the name of petitioner No. 2 is deleted from the array of writ petitioners.

(3.) THE contention of Mr. Raina, learned senior counsel is that the Public Service Commission being a selecting agency on its own cannot increase the number of vacancies requisitioned by the Government. Since the Government had allocated two vacancies under the Handicapped Category, therefore, the Commission made selection against those two posts. As the petitioners could not make the grade, therefore, they were not selected. However after selection, in the Handicapped Category the selection of one of the selected candidates was cancelled and since petitioner No. 2 was next in merit, so he has been selected and that is why learned Counsel for petitioners has sought the deletion of name of petitioner No. 2 from the array of petitioners. The contention of Mr, Siddiqui is that in terms of Section 22 of the Act, the Government was under a statutory obligation to have allocated three percent of the posts under the Handicapped Category out of the total vacancies.