AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—State having sent a requisition, KPSC issued a Notification as at Annexure-A, initiating recruitment to Group-C posts in various Departments of Government of Karnataka. Posts of Horticultural Assistants were notified indicating the horizontal and vertical reservation. 22 posts were reserved for the PH candidates. The petitioners participated in the recruitment process conducted by the KPSC pursuant to Annexure-A. These writ petitions were filed on 4.9.2012 (i) to quash Annexure-A and to consider other category of handicapped candidates for the post of Horticultural Assistants out of reserved 22 posts and (ii) to quash Annexure-F and identify the post of Horticultural Assistant for candidates with locomotor disability and consider the petitioners for the said posts. Respondents have filed separate statement of objections.
A preliminary objection was raised with regard to the maintainability of the writ petitions, by making a reference to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and others, . Mr. Reuben Jacob, also referred to an Order dated 29.11.2012 passed in W.P. Nos. 47554-559/2012.
Smt. Pramila Nesargi, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the petitioners are seeking issuance of directions with regard to reservation and hence, the writ petitions are maintainable.
Perused the writ record. Annexure-A is a Notification issued by the KPSC inviting applications from eligible candidates for the notified posts. Recruitment process to fill the said posts was undertaken. The petitioners have participated in the said process. Recruitment has also been completed.
Annexure-F is a Notification issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers under S. 32 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short, the Act) amending the Schedule to a Notification dated 29.11.2002 published in the Karnataka Gazette on 13.12.2002.
The preliminary objection raised with regard to the maintainability of the writ petitions is required to be considered first.
KPSC issued the Notification as at Annexure-A inviting applications. Petitioners participated in response to Annexure-A. The recruitment process has been completed by the KPSC. Thus, it is clear that the grievance of the petitioners is against the recruitment process undertaken by the respondents to fill the notified posts, more particularly, to the posts of Horticultural Assistants in the Department of Horticulture, Government of Karnataka. The notified posts are civil posts.
Since the impugned Notifications relate to recruitment and matters concerning recruitment, these writ petitions are not maintainable, as has been held by this Court in W.P. Nos. 47554-559/2012 on 29.11.2012. The petitioners, if are aggrieved, should first approach the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in terms of the mandate of the decision in the case of L. Chandra Kumar (supra). However, it is to be observed that the Apex Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. National Federation of the Blind and Others, , considering the relevant provisions of the Act, has held that the Union of India, the State Governments as well as the Union Territories have a categorical obligation under the Constitution of India and under various international treaties relating to human rights in general and treaties for disabled persons in particular, to protect the rights of disabled persons and that the computation of reservation for persons with disabilities has to be computed in case of Group - A, B, C and D posts in an identical manner viz., "computing 3% reservation and total number of vacancies in the Cadre strength" which is the intention of the Legislature. Certain clauses in the O.M. dated 29.12.2005 which are contrary to the reasoning were struck down and the appropriate Governments have been directed to issue New Office Memorandum(s) consistent with the decision rendered. Certain directions have also been issued for compliance within three months. In view of the said Judgment, the 1st respondent shall have to modify the existing O.Ms., consistent with the Apex Court order within three months'' period allowed by the said Judgment.
Since the writ petitions are not maintainable, by upholding the preliminary objections of the respondents, these writ petitions are rejected by reserving liberty to the petitioners to seek relief by approaching the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. The time taken in prosecution of these writ petitions from 04.09.2012 shall stand excluded, if the Tribunal is approached for relief before 28.02.2014.
Ordered accordingly.