Jagjit Singh and Another vs The State of Punjab and Others

G.R. Majithia, J.—The petitioners have sought a mandate to the respondents to appoint them against the vacancies of Lecturers reserved for the blind in the Education Department under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

The undisputed facts, briefly are :--

The petitioners are qualified for the post of Lecturer in different subjects. The State Government requisitioned the names of candidates through Employment Exchange to fill up 596 posts of Lecturers in different subjects in Government Schools in the State of Punjab. The Punjab Government issued instructions vide letter No. 10/23/W-Ed/ 10283, dated November 24, 1982 providing for the reservation of vacancies for the physically handicapped persons in class III and Class IV services of the State to be filled by direct recruitment. These instructions provided for 1 per cent posts for the blind. The Employment Exchange sponsored names of 5 blind persons, including the petitioners. The petitioners were called for interview, but the election Committee did not select any blind person persumably thinking that no reservation had been provided for the blind. Selection was made put of the candidates belonging to other reserved categories.

In response to the notice of motion issued by this Court, written statement has been filed on behalf of the Chairman, Departmental Selection Committee and Circle Education Officer, Jalandhar. It is stated therein that the Selection Committee found 2 blind candidates suitable for appointment and selected them. It is admitted that in the first list, no name from amongst the blind candidate was recommended. However, when a demand was specifically made by the State Government for submission of further recommendations, waiting list was prepared in which two names of blind candidates were recommended for appointment, namely, Smt. Taran Kaur and Mamta Batt.

There is no dispute that 1 percent posts were reserved for the blind. Having regard to the number of selections made and the percentage of reservation made in favour of the blind as provided in the reservation policy contained in Punjab Government''s circular letter No. 10/23/W-Ed/10283, dated November 24, 1982, there can be no doubt that the respondents ought to have provided at least six vacancies of Lecturers out of 596 posts in favour of the persons who were blind and who were eligible for being selected for the posts of Lecturers. According to the averments made in the written statement in the first list, no name from amongst the blind candidates was recommended for appointment But, when a demand was specifically made by the State Government for submission of further recommendations, waiting list was prepared in which two names of blind candidates were recommended. The Selection Committee did not wholly implement the Government policy providing for reservation for the blind. The stand now taken by the respondents that the petitioners were considered but were not found fit appears to be en afterthought. The respondents ought to have provided 6 vacancies for the blind candidates, who were eligible for being selected for the post of Lecturer. The Employment Exchange had forwarded the names of 5 blind persons, including the petitioners, for selection for the posts of Lecturers reserved for the blind persons. There were 6 vacancies for the blind and names of 5 blind candidates had been forwarded by the Employment Exchange and all the five candidates had considerable experience of teaching and were highly qualified. In para 12 of the petition, it is averred thus :--

''All the five candidates have considerable experience of teaching and also highly qualified. One of them has 23 years experience of teaching and presently working as Headmaster and as such action of the respondents is uncalled for."

In corresponding paragraph of the written statement, it is stated thus :--

"That the averments made in para No. 12 need no reply It is denied that the action of the answering respondents is arbitrary discriminatory and mala fide."

The respondents did not deny that all the five blind persons whose names were forwarded by the Employment Exchange were highly qualified and had considerable experience to their credit and that one of them had been working as Headmaster for long. Rules 3, 4 and 5 of Order 8 of the CPC form an integrated Code dealing with the manner in which allegations of fact in the plaint should be traversed and the legal consequences flowing from its non-compliance. The written statement must deal specifically with each allegation of fact in the plaint and when a defendant denies any such fact, he must not do so evasively but answer the point of substance. If his denial of a fact is not specified but evasive, the said fact shall be taken to be admitted. In such an event, the admission itself being proof, no other proof is necessary. In the instant case, the respondents did not deny the fact that the petitioners were highly qualified and had a considerable teaching experience to their credit. The only inference deducible is that the claim of the petitioners for their selection as Lecturers was negatived on erroneous grounds and in ignorance of the reservation made in favour of the blind persons by the Punjab Government. A perusal of the select list appended as Annexure P-3 to the writ petition indicates that no selection was made from amongst the category of the blind. The Selection Committee was in error in ignoring the reservation policy.

In the result, we allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to select and appoint the petitioners for the posts of Lectures against the vacancies reserved for the blind in accordance with the reservation policy contained in the Punjab Government''s letter No. 10/23/W-Ed/10283, dated November 24, 1982. No costs.