AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s): -
“A. issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction thereby calling for the records relating to the maintenance of
roster for giving effect to 3% reservation for persons with disabilities in terms of section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 read with directions of Hon’ble Apex Court in judgment dt. 8.10.13 in Civil Appeal No.
9096/2013 upto March, 2017 and thereafter in terms of Section 34 of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 read with Rule 11 of Rights of
Persons with Disabilities Rules 2017 including 1% for persons suffering from blindness and low vision by all Govt. Departments at least beginning
from 1996, examine the same and quash all such recruitments to the extent of 3% upto March, 2017 and thereafter 4% from April 2017 till date if
provision of reservation in terms of Section 33 of the old Act and Section 34 of the said new Act R.W.R. 11 of the said Rules have not been followed.
B. Issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction thereby directing the Respondents to work out the vacancies
which ought to have been reserved for each of the category of persons with disabilities in terms of Section 33 of the said old Act upto March, 2017
and thereafter in terms of Section 34 of said new Act from April, 2017 till date in a time bound manner in terms of the directions of Hon’ble Apex
Court as contained in judgment dt. 8.10.13 passed in Civil Appeal No. 9096/2013 and undertake a special recruitment drive for filling up the backlog of
vacancies so worked out for each category of disability including blind and low vision separately in compliance of the directions of Hon’ble Apex
Court in the said case.
C. Issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction thereby directing the Respondent No. 2 to monitor the
implementation of scheme of reservation for persons with disabilities in the same manner as is done by it in the case of SC, ST & OBC.
D. Issuance of a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ order or direction thereby restraining the respondents from undertaking any
recruitment in future without complying with the provisions of Section 34 of the RPD Act R.W.R. 11 of the RPD Rules 2017 as well as without
completing the recruitment process against backlog reserved vacancies for persons with disabilities in general and blind and low vision in particular in
accordance with the directions contained in the judgment dt. 8.10.13 in Civil Appeal No. 9096/2013.
After the matter was heard for some time, Sri S. K. Rungata, under instructions from the petitioner, states that this petition can be disposed of with
a direction to the State to consider the petitioner’s case, independent of the respective stands taken in these proceedings. Further, the petition be
treated as a representation to be considered expeditiously and preferably within a period of four months.
Learned Advocate General fairly states that the petitioner’s case shall be considered in accordance with law and as desired by them, within a
period of four months.
We only hope and expect that the State shall take a decision at the earliest and certainly within the aforesaid period. Needless to add, such decision
shall be taken as per law and if required by affording opportunity of placing additional material by the parties. The decision taken shall be
communicated to all concerned, including the petitioner.
Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, also reserving liberty to the petitioner or any one of the aggrieved parties to independently approach
the Court on the very same and subsequent cause of action, if the need so arises.
Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
We appreciate the efforts put in by Sri Lalit Kishore, learned Advocate General, Sri S. K. Rungata, learned Senior Counsel, Sri Surendra Kumar
Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Sugandha, learned counsel for the petitioner in arriving at a just decision.