Neeraj Acharya vs State of H.P. and Others

C.K. Thakker, C.J.—This petition is filed by the petitioner directing Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education, respondent No. 3 herein, to consider the candidature of the petitioner under the category of physically handicapped for admission to Junior Basic Training ("JBT" for short) two years Course, on the basis of entrance examination held in 1999 and lor consequential directions.

It was the case of the petitioner that on 4th June, 1997, he suffered a blast injury in his right eye. He was immediately taken to Civil Hospital, Kangra from where he was referred to AIIMS (RP Centre) New Delhi, where he was operated in July 1997 and a certificate was issued by the Senior Medical Superintendent on 21st July, 1997. The certificate shows visual impairment disability to the extent of 30 per cent.

According to the petitioner, applications were invited by the third respondent-Board for admission to JBT Course and the last date for submission of application forms was 10th May, 1999, The petitioner duly filled in the form for reserved seat for physically handicapped candidates. A written test was conducted, by respondent No. 3 wherein the petitioner was declared successful on 9th August, 1999. On 30th September, 1999, interview letter was sent to the petitioner and the petitioner remained present at the interview on 25th October, 1999. According to the petitioner, final selection result was declared by respondent No. 3 on 23rd December, 1999. The name of the petitioner, however, was not found in that final list. Being aggrieved by that action, the petitioner has approached this Court.

Notices were issued to the respondents pursuant to which parties appeared. Affidavit and counter-affidavits were filed. It was, inter-alia. contended by respondent No. 3 Board in the affidavit that the requirement of minimum disability was to the extent of 40 per cent. In the case of the petitioner, however, as the visual impairment disability was only 30 per cent, he was not eligible to be admitted to JBT Course and accordingly, he was not admitted.

In view of the above fact and the stand taken by the respondent-Board in the affidavit-in-reply that the disability, required for getting admission was 40 per cent and in the case of the petitioner, it was only 30 percent, in our opinion, the petitioner cannot be said to be eligible and the non-consideration of the case of the petitioner could not be said to be illegal or contrary to law.

In the affidavit-in-rejoinder, the petitioner has stated that in case of one Yog Raj. son of Babu Ram of village Nagoh, P.O. Hatwali, Tehsil Fatehpur, District Kangra, though his disability was assessed 30 per cent, he was admitted to JBT Course at Dharamsala. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner has not been similarly treated and the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution have been violated. It was urged that the petitioner''s case also deserves the same consideration.

In the supplementary affidavit by the Board, it was stated that while scrutinizing the record, it had come to the light that "a genuine bonafide mistake" was committed in granting admission to Yog Raj for JBT Course with 30 per cent disability. It was clarified that the said mistake came to light when the replying respondent became aware of that fact because of the averments made by the petitioner. The inquiry is being conducted in the matter and the mistake has been committed inadvertently and unintentionally by the Interview Committee headed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chowari (Chamba). It was further stated that the petitioner is not entitled to a similar benefit when under the policy he could not be given admission.

In our opinion, when the requirement I was disability to the extent of 40 per cent, I the petitioner cannot be said to be eligible to get admission. True it is, that in case of Yog Raj some mistake was committed but, in our considered opinion, the petitioner cannot invoke the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. Mistake in one case cannot be allowed to be perpetuated in other cases. Again, when the petitioner has approached this Court praying for a writ of mandamus, as per well settled principle, this Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the authority to act contrary to law.

For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondent Board in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.

CMP No. 729 of 2000

In view of the fact that we have disposed of the matter on merits, it is not necessary to enter into larger discussion with regard to the certificate issued by the authorities or any mistake committed in filing earlier affidavit. The application stands disposed of.

CMP No. 14 of 2000

In view or the order passed in the main matter, ad interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. This application also stands disposed of.