LAWS(RAJ)-1998-4-5

LAL CHAND KORANI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On April 28, 1998
Lal Chand Korani Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN pursuance of the Notification Annx. P/1 datd 24.4.1997. petitioner Lalchand Korani applied for the post of Teacher Gr. III. In the notification it was notified that there was reservation for the physically handicapped persons. The physically handicapped applicants were required to enclose a certificate, issued by competent medical officer within three years.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that he was suffering from Polio from the childhood and his physical impairment is medically termed as 'Residual Poliomyelitis with lower limb' and hence he obtained a certificate from the competent medical officer of 23rd April, 1992 certifying that he was orthopaedically handicapped,and he enclosed this certificate alongwith the application but the respondents refused to accept' his application on the ground that the certificate was not more than 3 years old and this compelled him to submit his application for the general category candidates. It has been averred that the petitioner was entitled to be considered for the post reserved for handicapped persons on the basis of the certificate produced by him. It has been prayed that the respondents be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr. III as physically handicapped person.

(3.) IN the rejoinder, it has been averred that in the 1976 Rules, no duration has been provided for a certificate of physically handicapped person and a patient who is suffering from polio cannot be cured by afflux of time and as such the petitioner could not be deprived of his right of appointment on the basis of the certificate produced by him. Regarding the application, seeking appointment in the general category, it has been averred that when the respondents refused to accept the application of the petitioner on the basis of certificate Annx. 4, he had no alternative but to apply in the general category but this should not be considered as waiver on the part of the petitioner.