Vivek Kumar Singh vs State of Jharkhand

Virender Singh, C.J.—Aggrieved of order dated 24.06.2015 passed in WP(S) No. 330/2013, the appellant-writ petitioner (hereinafter to be referred as ''petitioner'') has knocked the door of this Court by filing the instant Letters Patent Appeal.

During the pendency of the Letters Patent Appeal, a Public Interest Litigation being WP(PIL) No. 7525 of 2013 titled "Arun Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Ors." seeking a direction upon the resplendent-State of Jharkhand to provide and implement reservation under Section 33 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 on the basis of cadre strength came to be decided vide, order dated 09.03.2016. In the said case, this Court held as under:-

"13. Considering the provisions under the Disabilities Act, 1995 and the judgment in "National Federation of the Blind" (supra), it is hereby declared that reservation for differently-abled persons shall be decided on the basis of total cadre strength and, it would be implemented to total number of vacancies advertised. For example, if only 20 vacancies against total cadre strength of 100 posts have been advertised, one post may be kept reserved for any one of the three categories of disabilities mentioned in Section 33, if a post can be identified for extending benefit of reservation to such category of persons. In the event no post from roster point number 1 to 20 can be identified, one vacancy from roster point number 1 to 33 must be kept reserved for any one of the three categories of disabilities in tune with Section 33. However, at this point also if no post is identifiable for any one of the three categories of disabilities, from roster point number 33 to 67 two posts shall be kept reserved, and similarly, again reservation in roster point number 34 to 67 and roster point number 68 to 100 has to be implemented. The reservation under Section 33 is distinct from the scheme of reservation for SC/ST/OBC etc. in as much as, reservation in favour of persons with disabilities is horizontal and that precisely is the reason why vacancy occurring in the roster at roster point nos. 1 to 33, 34 to 37, 68 to 100 are available for appointment of suitable persons with disabilities. In any event all Establishments have to ensure reservation of minimum 3% for differently-abled persons as indicated in Section 33 of the Disabilities Act, 1995.

We however, clarify that once any one of the posts from roster point number 1 to 33 is kept reserved, another vacancy shall be reserved only from roster point number 34 to 67. The number of vacancies advertised shall not be a disability for not extending benefit under Section 33 to the person/persons belonging to any one of the three categories mentioned in Section 33. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we find ourselves unable to accept the contention raised on behalf of the respondent-State of Jharkhand that vacancies at roster point number 33, 67 and 100 alone are available for appointment for differently-abled persons."

It needs no reiteration that the State of Jharkhand is under a duty to implement the mandate under the Disability Act, 1995. The issue involved in the present Letters Patent Appeal is now answered by the decision of this Court in Arun Kumar Singh''s case. It needs to be mentioned that another Public Interest Litigation viz. WP(PIL) No. 5764 of 2015 questioning the rejection of OMR Answer-sheets was pending consideration in this Court simultaneously. During the course of hearing of the said Public Interest Litigation, the manner in which the State has provided reservation under Section 33 of the Disability Act, 1995 for the candidates appearing in the 5th Jharkhand Public Service Examination came to be questioned.

Vide order dated 16.03.2016, the present Letters Patent Appeal was directed to be heard along with WP(PIL) No. 5764 of 2015.

In the said Public Interest Litigation, the State of Jharkhand took a stand that in the forthcoming 6th Jharkhand Public Service Examination the State would keep the posts for backlog vacancies reserved for appointment under Section 33 of the Disability Act, 1995.

Considering the orders passed in WP(PIL) No. 7525 of 2013 and in WP(PIL) No. 5764 of 2015, the impugned order dated 24.06.2015 passed in WP(S) No. 330 of 2013 is set aside and it is held that whatever benefit flows to the appellant in the light of orders passed by this Court in the aforesaid two Public Interest Litigation''s shall be granted to him. It is further directed that the respondent -State shall consider the case of the appellant for appointment on a suitable post on the basis of his merit in the 4th Jharkhand Public Service Examination, if there is backlog vacancy from 4th Jharkhand Public Service Examination.

The Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed of.