Shravan Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Pankaj Purohit, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the indulgence of this Court for a direction to the respondents to promote him to class-III post pursuance to the selection process for promotion which has been initiated by the respondents and to reconsider his claim for promotion to the suitable post which is equivalent to the Class III post with same pay scale and service benefit by granting relaxation/ exemption to the petitioner from computer typing.

Petitioner is a physically challenged person, who is working on Class IV post in the Commercial Tax department. His left hand is impaired and he has 80% disability. There is no such specific requirement for typing test to the post of clerk cadre, the petitioner never approached for typing post as per the O.M. dated 24.12.2016, by which the promotion exercise was started. Under 15% of posts which are reserved for promotion from Class IV to Class III employees, petitioner competed, out of 40 marks in written examination, he has obtained 29 marks and out of 10 marks for computer knowledge obtained 0 marks, but, being 80% disability from left arm, he could not obtain the minimum qualifying marks in the computer typing as a result, he was awarded zero marks in the computer typing and the respondent has not provided the marks towards the character roll of the petitioner, therefore his candidature has been rejected.

The case of the petitioner is that he was unable to type, considering his physical challenged condition, typing test should not have been made mandatory for him. There are other posts for promotion from Class IV which do not require typing test on which petitioner has not been considered, as according to the respondents, such posts are for direct recruitment.

It is true that in case typing skill is mandatory requirement for certain Class III posts, the candidature of the petitioner would be difficult to consider, since admittedly he cannot do typing work because of his physical challenge but since there are other posts which have been identified by the Government to be filled by physically challenged persons and denial of promotion to the said posts on ground these posts are to be filled up only by direct recruitment, does not seem to be positive, particularly, in view of the fact that the petitioner meets all other parameters for such promotion.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPSS No.116 of 2014 Hem Chandra Lohani Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, where, the similar controversy has also been set at rest, vide judgment and order dated 05.12.2014, which was subsequently affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 05.12.2016 in Special Appeal No.157 of 2015, State of Uttarakhand & Others Vs. Hem Chandra Lohani.

Learned State Counsel has also submitted that the present matter is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 05.12.2014, which was later on affirmed in Special Appeal as referred above by learned counsel for the petitioner vide judgment dated 05.12.2016.

In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment and order dated 05.12.2014 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPSS No.116 of 2014 Hem Chandra Lohani Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, which is affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.157 of 2015, State of Uttarakhand & Others Vs. Hem Chandra Lohani, vide judgment dated 05.12.2016. The case of the petitioner shall abide by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 05.12.2014, which is later on affirmed vide judgment dated 05.12.2016 in Special Appeal as stated above.