Ashwin Jawaharlal Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors

G.S.SISTANI, J

Challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 20.04.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner has

been disposed of. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the writ petition was decided on the first date of hearing without issuing notice in the

matter and without respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 being represented in Court. It is further submitted that the primary relief is sought against the

respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has raised serious questions with regard to the rights of persons with disabilities. In this

case, the son of the appellant is a disabled person with hearing impairment. For the sake of convenience he shall be referred to as the appellant. The

appellant has been appearing in the Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering (GATE) Examination for the past five years and he has cleared the

examination on four occasions but has not been finally successful on all four occasions, and has fallen short of the composite score which is required

for qualifying the post which is comprised of a written examination, interview, group discussion and group task. He submits that as of today there are

100 vacancies for the disabled out of which 90 vacancies are backlogs. It is alleged that the entire procedure which is being followed is not disabled

friendly, to say the least, an impression is created that the beneficial piece of legislation is not being adhered to and there is a systematic attempt to

keep the persons with disabilities out of the jobs which are available. Â

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

We find that the appellant has raised serious questions which require consideration and a response from respondent No. 3/IOC and respondent No.

4/ONGC would be necessary to examine the allegations which have been made in the writ petition. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of

the matter, lest prejudice be caused to the rights of any of the parties especially respondent Nos. 3 and 4 who were neither represented before the

learned Single Judge nor represented before Court today, although we are informed that advance copies were supplied to them, we are of the view

that the impugned order requires to be set aside and the matter be remanded back for fresh hearing, after issuance of notice to all the respondents and

upon receipt of a response from them. Â

Accordingly, the order dated 20.04.2018 is set aside. Matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge. Parties to appear before the learned

Single Judge on 13.08.2018. Counsel for the appellant will bring to the notice of all the respondents the order passed by this Court today. We make it

clear that all legal objections of the respondents are kept open.

With these directions, the appeal is disposed of. Â