ASHA RAM Vs. R P S C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 29. 4. 98 in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3993/89 by which the petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are that in pursuance of advertisement issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, for holding the Joint Competitive Examinations for the post of Lower Division Clerks, applications were invited. THE curriculum prescribed for the Joint Competitive Examination, 1986 reveals that different papers were prescribed for ordinary physically fit candidates and those who are physically handicapped. THE compulsory paper for both category of candidates was General Hindi carrying 100 marks. THE candidates other than handicapped persons were required to opt from the Hindi Typing Test or English Typing Test as the second paper and those who were physically handicapped candidates were to chose one of the two different set of papers namely General English or General Studies or General Knowledge i. e. to say the typing test was not necessary for physically handicapped candidates. An explanation was also attached to the curriculum giving meaning to expression ``physically handicapped', which is reproduced hereunder: ***

(3.) IT has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant before us that on the face of it, petitioner-appellant has fulfilled all the requirements requisite for considering him as a candidate of handicapped category in view of the clear requirement stated in the curriculum extracted above. IT was stated in the advertisement in unequivocal terms that a physically handicapped person means and include who has such defect or deformity in his one or both hands which inhibits the candidate in typing and it also includes a blind. The curriculum also required the mode of verification of a candidate's being a physically handicapped, who offer to take Joint Competitive of such candidate must be accompanied with a certificate to that effect issued by such medical officer who is not below the rank of Chief Medical & Health Officer. IT was also pointed out by referring to Annex. 2, about the genuineness of which there is no dispute, that it has been issued by Chief Medical & Health Officer, Ratangarh and, therefore, it cannot be said that the certificate was not issued by an appropriate authority competent to issue such certificate. The certificate also discloses that the petitioner-appellant was suffering from such a defect or deformity in the joint of middle figure of his left hand which affects the typing capability of his middle finger of the left hand. Therefore, it is submitted by Mr. Bishnoi, learned counsel for the appellant, that the respondent Commission had cancelled the selection of the petitioner as a physically handicapped person on wholly untenable and non-existent ground without application of mind to the existing facts and the learned Single Judge erred in not considering the fact that denying the petitioner consideration for his appointment in the category of physically handicapped candidate on the basis of marks obtained as such in the Joint Competitive Examination, 1986 was wholly arbitrary and unjust affecting the rights of the petitioner under Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the Court ought to have exercised its extra-ordinary jurisdiction to protect the petitioner from the breach of his fundamental rights. IT was further pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appointment in pursuance of 1986 examination have not yet finalised inasmuch as the matter of selection of 1986 Joint Competitive Examination has been subject matter of litigation and as late as on 16. 9. 1999 the Rajasthan Public Service Commission has issued Press Note which has been published in Rajasthan Patrika dated 20th Sept. , 1999 inviting fresh applications from those candidates who have passed the Joint Competitive Examination, 1986 in pursuance of the directions issued to the State Govt. by the Supreme Court of India alongwith an affidavit in proforma annexed with the Press Note, and therefore, the petitioner's case is liable to be considered by the respondents as a case of physically handicapped person who had passed 1986 examination by ignoring Annex. 4 which has been issued wholly arbitrarily denying the petitioner equal opportunity in the matter of employment notwithstanding that he has passed the examination of 1986 as a physically handicapped person, the category to which he belongs. The copy of aforesaid press note as published in Rajasthan Patrika was placed on record.