VINITA NAIR Vs. REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Vinita Nair, aggrieved by failure/omission of respondent-University of Rajasthan to provide reservation to physically handicapped candidates against all 294 posts of Professors, Associate Professors and Assistant Professors of all the departments rather than subject-wise, has approached this court by filing present writ petition, with the prayer that the respondent be directed to provide reservation to visually impaired candidates as per Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short, "the Act of 1995"). Prayer has also been made for a direction to respondent to maintain roster system to extend benefit of Rules 37 and 40 of the Rajasthan Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules, 2011 (for short, "the Rules of 2011") and to maintain roster register with effect from 07.02.1996.

(2.) The respondent-University of Rajasthan issued an advertisement No. Estt.-1/2012/3189 on 01.11.2012 inviting applications for appointment against 294 posts of Professors, Associate Professors and Assistant Professors including five posts of Assistant Professor in the subject of Philosophy. Petitioner possesses the qualification of B.A., M.A., M. Phil, and Ph.D. she also cleared National Eligibility Test and state Eligibility Test, she has requisite experience of four years of teaching as Lecturer in three recognized Degree Colleges. She being eligible for the post of Assistant Professor in Philosophy subject, applied for appointment on the said post. But the respondent did not provide reservation to visually impaired against the post of Assistant Professor in the subject of Philosophy. Petitioner submitted a representation to the Vice-Chancellor on 14-11-2013. When however, the petitioner failed to receive any response, she approached the Commissioner, Specially Abled Persons, Rajasthan, who, by order dated 16.12.2013, directed the respondent-University to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on such post as per the provisions of Section 33 of the Act of 1995 and Rule 40 (i) of the Rules of 2011. Refusal of the respondent- University to implement the order of the Disability Commissioner, has compelled the petitioner to move this court by filing the present writ petition.

(3.) Petitioner Ms. Vinita Nair argued her case in person, meticulously referring to each relevant provisions of law, relevant documents with reference to the pagination in the paper book and contents thereof. She has argued that it was incumbent upon the respondent-University to provide 3% reservation as per the mandate of Section 33 of the Act of 1995 out of total 294 posts, which would be six, of the posts are sought to be filled in by direct recruitment. Working out 3% quota on total 294 posts, respondent No. 2 were required to provide reservation on 12 posts to differently abled persons, whereas they have provided reservation against only six posts. It is contended that the Rules of 2011 came into force from 26.07.2011. As per Rule 37 of the Rules 2011, the respondent is under obligation to maintain the roster system having cycle of 100 points. Each cycle of 100 point shall be divided into three blocks, thus providing reservation to differently abled candidates at point Nos. l, 34 and 67. Petitioner being visually impaired is covered in that category. She is therefore also entitled to concession given under Rule 40(i) of the Rules of 2011. This Rule provides concession of 5% in qualifying/pass-marks in individual paper or aggregate, whatever is prescribed in the examination.