Sunil Kumar Raina vs State of J&K

Mr. Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J.—The petitioner claims to be belonging to a handicapped category and challenges the notification issued by the

Public Service Commission dated 26.4.2011 by which the respondents have declared the result of the Assistant Director Statistical-cum-

Evaluation Competent Examination held by the Commission in the month of February, 2011 inasmuch as they had not earmarked any vacancies in

terms of their obligation as prescribed in the Jammu and Kashmir Persons with disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full

Participation) Act, 1998 (for short, Disabilities Act of 1998).

It is stated that the petitioner had appeared in the written examination but was not called for interview and it was only pursuant to an interim

order passed by this court dated 23.5.2011 that the petitioner was permitted to be interviewed for the said post and in addition to this, one post

was also ordered to be reserved from the open merit category.

Response has been filed by the Public Service Commission wherein it is stated that a large number of candidates had appeared in the written

examination out of which only 292 candidates were declared as having qualified in the said examination. The last candidate in the general category

had secured 290 marks in the written examination as against 274, which has been secured by the petitioner. On account of the low merit of the

petitioner in the written examination, he was not eligible to be called for interview. It is further stated that the petitioner was permitted to sit in the

interview only pursuant to interim directions passed by this court.

It is not denied that the reservation provided under the Disabilities Act of 1998 is only horizontal reservation. The petitioner ought to have

obtained the minimum qualifying marks prescribed for the written examination, which the petitioner, however, failed to acquire. Although he was

permitted to sit in the interview pursuant to court orders, however, that by itself would not create any better right in his favour.

The obligation of the respondents-State to identify the posts in all establishments, which can be reserved for persons with disabilities is the other

issue raised in the present petition. However, I feel that it may not be necessary to deal with the same inasmuch as this aspect of the matter has

already been covered by a Division Bench of this court in Anjeel Kumar & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors., 2015 (2) JKJ 785 [HC] wherein

the court has recognised the obligation of the State to do the needful.

Had it been a case where the petitioner had qualified the written examination, there would have been no difficulty to issue directions to the

respondents with a view to ensure that the provisions of the Disabilities Act of 1998 are applied in its letter and spirit for the purposes of granting

benefit to the petitioner. However, since it is clear that the petitioner had failed to obtain minimum marks prescribed for appearing in the interview,

it is no longer open to the petitioner to claim right of consideration in the said category.

Be that as it may, the petition is found to be without merit and is accordingly dismissed along with connected application(s), if any.