Dr. Honey Arya vs Panjab University

R.S. Mongia, J.—Petitioner is an orthopaedically handicapped person and is suffering from post-polio paralysis involving right leg, thigh and hip muscle and walks with the help of crutches. She had challenged various advertisements, mainly advertisement No. 4 of 98, published by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 inviting applications for Lecturer in History. One post was in the morning studies and one in the evening studies. The ground of attack is that in the said advertisement there was no reservation for the physically handicapped persons, which is in violation of the provisions of the Act, known as "The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1955." Section 33 of the said Act envisages that very appropriate Government would appoint in every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less than three per cent of persons or class of persons with disability of which one per cent each shall be reserved for persons suffering from -

(i) blindness or low vision;

(ii) hearing impairment;

(iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy, in the posts identified for each disability.

The provision of Section 32 of the Act may also be noticed here :-

"32. Identification of posts which can be reserved for persons with disabilities -

(a) Identify posts, in the establishments, which can be reserved for the persons with disability;

(b) At periodical intervals not exceeding three years, review the list of posts identified and up-date the list taking into consideration the developments in technology."

Petitioner in fact was duly interviewed for the post and could not make the grade, but, as stated above, she is claiming that there should have been reservation for the handicaps and she should have been considered against a post which should have been reserved for the handicapped category.

The petitioner''s case is that the provisions of the Act, especially Section 33, ipso facto applies to the Panjab University and under the provisions of the Act 3% reservation was required to be made for the handicapped persons. In any case, it was submitted that UGC had already conveyed its decision to all the Universities, vide Annexure P.4 in August, 1996 regarding reservation of the posts of Lecturers for the handicapped persons. The decision reads as under :-

"University Grants Commission

Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,

New Delhi 110002.

August 96.

No. F.11-5/93 (CPP-II)

The Registrar,

All Universities,

as per list.

Sub : Provisions of reservation for physically handicapped persons for appointment as Lecturers. Sir,

The Commission considered the matter regarding providing reservation for physically handicapped persons for appointment as Lecturers in the Universities and decided as under :-

"The Commission was not in favour of separate reservation for physically handicapped candidates in faculty appointments. However, due consideration may be given to the physically handicapped candidates by the Universities for appointment to the post of Lecturer."

The above decision may be kept in view while making appointment to the post of Lecturer and this may be brought to the notice of all colleges."

The above decision was forwarded by the Panjab University to all its Heads of the Departments for information and necessary action.

It is not clear from the pleadings as to whether the Central Government has identified the posts for the Panjab University which are to be reserved under the Act as required u/s 32 of the Act (supra) or alternatively whether the University itself has identified the posts for which reservation is to be made under the Act as per the provision of Section 32.

In this writ petition, no relief can be given to the petitioner inasmuch as we are of the view that the posts have not been identified which are to be reserved. Even if it is assumed that Lecturer post is the one which falls u/s 32 of the Act for the purpose of reservation, in the present case, however no post could be reserved as only one post in the Morning Session and one post in the Evening (which are separate posts) was advertised and if any reservation was made for the handicaps, it would amount to 100% reservation. In theses circumstances, we do not find any fault in the advertisement and the selection made by the University.

While dismissing the writ petition we may observe that the University should undertake the process in accordance with law for complying with the provisions of the Act and make necessary reservation and if need be, frame a roster reserving particular points for the handicapped category so that the object of the Act for which it was enacted is achieved.

Petition dismissed.