Shyam Singh vs State of H.P. and Others

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers:

(i) That the impugned decision dated 31.3.2010, Annexure P-9 may be quashed and set-aside.

(ii) That the respondent No. 3 may be directed to declare the result of the interview held on 30.10.2009 in which the petitioner appeared and in case the petitioner is declared successful the respondent No. 3 may be directed to make recommendation for appointment against the post of Lecturer Chemistry (College Cadre). It may further be ordered that the recommendation of the respondent No. 3 will relate back to the date when the names of other candidates in various subjects were recommended. R-1 and R-2 may be ordered to offer appointment on such recommendation.

It is seen from the reply-affidavit of the Commission that steps were taken to fill up 73 backlog vacancies reserved for persons with disabilities, for the second time by advertisement dated 4.12.2008, which included 5 posts - 3 for visually impaired and 2 for deaf and dumb, Lecturers Chemistry (College Cadre). It is seen that only one visually impaired candidate (the petitioner), had appeared. Though not reserved for orthopaedically challenged, one person from that category also applied. The orthopaedically challenged person was not eligible to apply for the post of Lecturer Chemistry (College Cadre) in terms of notification since all the 5 vacancies were reserved for visually impaired and hearing impaired. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the Commission that on the principle of interchangeability only, he appeared. The question of interchangeability arises only if the candidates are not available in the particular category for whom seats are reserved. It is further seen from the reply that Commission had made attempts for interchangeability so as to make the orthopaedically challenged person also eligible. But the Government did not agree. Thereafter, it appears, instead of finalizing the selection to its logical end, the Commission as per the impugned Annexure P-9, order cancelled the whole process of selection. We are afraid, the stand taken by the Commission cannot be justified in terms of the guidelines.

It has to be specifically noted that steps were taken by the Commission for filling up the backlog vacancies for the second time in the year 2008. In that attempt, for 3 seats reserved for the visually challenged persons for the posts of Lecturer Chemistry (College Cadre), admittedly only one candidate had applied (the petitioner). Therefore, only if that candidate is not found suitable or eligible, the question of fresh selection for the purposes of filling up the backlog in the case of visually challenged arises. The procedure adopted by the Commission to cancel the selection for want of sufficient number of candidates shall not apply to the selection process in the case of filling up of back log vacancies and that too in the case of persons with disabilities and still further, when steps are taken for a second time. From among the applicants in the reserved quota, if any one candidate is otherwise eligible, the selection shall be concluded and taken to its logical end. The Commission is free to go for fresh selection in respect of the remaining 2 vacancies in the category of visually challenged persons even by interchangeability. Needless also to say that in case the petitioner is otherwise not eligible in terms of the notification also, it will be open to the Commission to take steps for fresh selection in respect of that vacancy also.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Commission to finalize the selection in terms of the selection process for the visually challenged persons as per the process already commenced for which interview was held on 30.10.2009. The needful including the publication of the result shall be done within a period of one month.

Copy Dasti.