AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
That the petitioner above named craves for indulgence of this Hon’ble Court by way of issuance of any appropriate Writ preferably in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the Respondents concerned to appoint the petitioner on the post of Gramin Awas Sahayak under Indira Awas Yojna of the Rural Development Department under handicapped category, as the petitioner who is a 45% physically (bone) handicapped candidate has applied against the total 151 posts advertised under Saharsa District but in a very arbitrary manner only 3 handicapped persons have been appointed against 5 seats as 3% quota for handicapped out of total 151 seats, but all the 151 seats have already been filled up without allotting 3% quota to handicapped candidates which is a clear case of violation of reservations policy. And/or any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of this case.
The brief facts, as culled out from the Writ petition, are that a notification was issued for appointment of Gramin Awas Sahayak under Indira Awas Yojna of DRDA, Saharsa under the Department of Rural Development Government of Bihar, for a total of 151 seats. The petitioner being eligible also applied for the said post under the Physical Handicapped (PH) category, for which 3% reservation is provided i.e. 5 seats out of 151 posts as per the rule.
The petitioner appeared in the entrance test but his name did not appear in the final list which was published on 28.05.2014. On examination of the final list, it was found that out of the total 151 selected candidates, only 3 handicapped persons were selected one from General Category and two from Backward Category. However, Extremely Backward Class (EBC) and Scheduled Castes (SC) handicapped candidates were completely ignored and discriminated. Being aggrieved by the same the present Writ petition has been filed.
On the other hand, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 4. The contents of the counter affidavit disclose that the entire process of selection was conducted in a transparent manner by the department under the Resolution No. 165209 dated 03.10.2013 and that a general notice was published under the seal and signature of the Secretary, Department of the Rural Development, dated 18.12.2013. In fact, the applications were invited through online directly by the Department and it was uploaded on the website of the Department. The officials of the concerned districts were asked to physically examine the applicants and verify their original certificates which were uploaded on the website. Thereafter, a committee headed by the District Magistrate short-listed the candidates as per the rules of reservation and other relevant guidelines issued by the Department. Consequently, the final selection list and waiting list were prepared which were, published and uploaded on the website of NIC. Out of total post of 151, 05 seats fell under the reservation category for handicapped applicants.
In accordance with the rules of ideal roaster, as envisaged by Circular No. 458 dated 13.09.2002 issued by the then Department of Personnel and Administrate Reforms, (now known as the General Administration Department), the posts for physical handicapped are as follows:-
(A). For visually handicapped, roster point 1 to 33 = one post.
(B). For dumb and deaf handicapped, roster point 34 to 67 = one post.
(C). For those who are handicapped in moving, roster point 68 to 100 = one post.
Thus, the petitioner could be considered only against one post. The candidate who has been selected for the said post had 55% disability and has scored 82.11%, whereas the petition had only 45 % disability and has secured 72.33%. Therefore, it is evident that no violation of reservation policy. Accordingly, one candidate from each of the category under physical handicapped, deaf and dumb handicapped and handicapped with moving were selected as per the roster.
Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.
The record reveals that the persons who secured higher marks than the petitioner have been selected under the category of physically handicapped in moving category in accordance with the roaster circular. Therefore, there is no illegality and irregularity in the selection process.
Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the Writ petition, hence, the Writ petition is dismissed as it is devoid of merits.