JAKIR HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.Shailesh Prakash Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Ashok Gaur assisted by Mr.Himanshu Jain for respondent No.2 & Mr.S.N.Kumawat, learned counsel for Rajasthan Public Service Commission.

(2.) The pleaded case of the petitioner, in short, is that he is a handicapped person with 40% locomotor disability and is entitled to due preference in the matter of public employment, as contemplated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act, 1995 (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Act'). A notification was published on 27.8.2008 by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Commission')initiating the process for direct recruitment to the Rajasthan Judicial Service (hereafter referred to as 'the Service'), whereby 87 posts were advertised, out of which, 2 posts were reserved for disabled persons.

(3.) According to the petitioner, in terms of the Rajasthan Employment of the Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2000 (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Rules'), one post for a candidate with locomotor disability and cerebral palsy and the other for visually impaired, was reserved. As per the notification, the petitioner applied and appeared in the related examination and the results disclosed that he had secured 139 marks. The results revealed that in view of the marks secured by him, he was not adjudged qualified to be called for the interview as the cut off marks for candidates with locomotor disability was 155. The petitioner has asserted that as 87 posts were advertised, 261 (87 x 3) candidates ought to have been declared successful in the written examination, and instead, only 257 persons were proclaimed to be so. He has further averred that only 2 persons out of the disability category had been called by the Commission for the interview. While contending that having regard to the number of posts reserved for physically handicapped candidates, 6 ought to have been declared to be successful in the written examination and called for the interview, the petitioner has impugned the action of the respondents in excluding him from the process after the written examination. A writ of mandamus, amongst others, had been sought for to adjudge him to be eligible for appointment to the Service on the basis of his performance in the selection process involved.