HARUN vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHERS

K.M. JOSEPH, C.JÂ Â Â Â Â Â

1. Appellant is the writ petitioner. He applied for a part-time job of Sweeper in Punjab National Bank. Age relaxation for 13 years was given

to physically challenged candidates, who belonged to OBC. Appellant belonged to OBC. He applied under the physically challenged quota.Â

The Bank rejected his candidature vide order dated 23.12.2014 (Annexure No. 13 to the writ petition) on the ground that the disability is 15 per

cent. Â

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition noting the above fact and reasoning that, normally, a candidate, who claims reservation for

appointment under physically challenged category, must have at least 40 per cent disability or above. Noting the admitted fact that the appellant had

only 15 per cent disability, the writ petition came to be rejected.

We have heard Mr. M.S. Bisht, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondents /

Bank. Â

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, as per the Circular of the Bank dated 11.02.2012, there is no prescription that a person should

have 40 per cent disability. Per contra, learned counsel for the Bank would point out that Office Memorandum dated 29.12.2005 issued by the

Department of Personnel and Training prescribes that a person can be considered under the physically disabled category if he has at least 40 per cent

relevant disability. Â

It may be true that, in the subsequent Circular, there is no prescription that a person should have 40 per cent disability; but, at the same time, the

Circular does not provide that a person with disability, which is less than 40 per cent, will be considered. Therefore, a meaningful understanding of

the Circular and the Office Memorandum, read together, would yield the inevitable result that, to strike a balance between the mandate of Article 14

and the need to provide for the physically challenged persons, there must be a certain minimum percentage, as is contemplated under the Office

Memorandum issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, which is, apparently, being followed by the respondent, which is a public sector

bank. Therefore, we see no reason to take a different view from that taken by the learned Single Judge.

The appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.Â