Shakuntala Thakur vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Pritinker Diwaker, J.—As the point raised and the relief sought for by the petitioners in both the aforesaid petitions is one and the same, the present petitions are disposed of by this common order.

The petitioners in the instant petitions are physically handicapped persons who are working as lecturer in the School Education Department. According to the petitioners, by getting the advantage of 3% reservation they are entitled for promotion to the post of Principal. Grievance of the petitioners is that in the list of counselling their names have not been included whereas had the 3% reservation been given to them, being physically handicapped persons their names would have found place in the counselling list.

Facts of the case in brief are that on 22.1.2014 Departmental Promotion Committee was convened by the State Government and after selecting the candidates for promotion, a list (Annexure P-6) was published calling the selected candidates for counselling for the place of posting as per their choice.

Placing reliance on The Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 it has been argued by the Counsel for the petitioners that 3% reservation ought to have been provided by the respondents prior to converting Departmental Promotion Committee and had it been done names of the petitioners would have found place in the counselling list and they would have been promoted to the post of Principal. According to the Counsel for the petitioners, circular dated 26.2.2014 has the retrospective effect and therefore the petitioners are entitled for promotion. Reliance is placed on by the Counsel for the petitioners on the decisions of the Apex Court in the matter of Govt. of India through Secretary and Another Vs. Ravi Prakash Gupta and Another, and that of Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. National Federation of the Blind and Others, .

Replying to the argument advanced by the Counsel for the petitioners, it has been argued by the Counsel for the respondents that on 26.2.2014 for the first time in the State of Chhattisgarh a decision has been taken that 3% seats would be reserved for the physically handicapped persons for promotion and the benefit of this circular would be available to such persons only in the cases where Departmental Promotion Committee was convened on or after 26.2.2014. It is argued that the Departmental Promotion Committee was held on 22.1.2014 which was prior to the date of issuance of the circular and its applicability and therefore the petitioners are not entitled for any such reservation. It is argued that the decisions of the Apex Court relied upon by the Counsel for the petitioners are of no help to the petitioners because they are in relation to the direct recruitment process and thus have nothing to do with the applicability of 3% reservation in promotion matters.

Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

From the documents on record it is apparent that the Departmental Promotion Committee was convened by the State Government on 22.1.2014 and thereafter list of selected candidates was published calling upon them to appear in the counselling. Documents on record also go to show that the circular of the State Government giving 3% reservation to physically handicapped persons has been issued on 26.2.2014 i.e. about a month after convening the DPC and therefore the said circular cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect unless it is specifically provided therein. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that on this ground alone these petitions are liable to be dismissed. More so, the decisions cited by the Counsel for the petitioners are of no help to the petitioners as they are in relation to the direct recruitment whereas the cases in hand pertain to promotion. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this Court does not find any substance in these petitions and accordingly they are hereby dismissed.