Sri Chandrakant vs State of Karnataka and Others

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—The petitioner, a practicing advocate, having applied to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), in response to notification No. C.J.R.C. 1/2010 dated 06.08.2011, issued by respondent No. 4, has filed this writ petition on 07.10.2013, to quash the said notification as at Annexure-B and for a mandamus against respondent Nos. 3 and 4, to reissue the notification by providing reservation for handicapped/disabled persons at the rate of 3% by considering the number of vacancies to be filled up and grant consequential reliefs.

Heard Sri N.R. Naik, learned advocate for the petitioner and Smt. M.S. Prathima, learned HCGP for the respondents and perused the writ petition record.

At the outset, the writ petition is hit by delay and laches. The notification in question was issued on 06.08.2011 and thereafter the written test and viva-voce having been held, in which the petitioner participated, the list of selected candidates having been prepared was sent to the first respondent, for further action. At this stage, without impleading the selected candidates in pursuance of the impugned notification, the petitioner cannot maintain this writ petition.

That apart, a person similarly placed like the petitioner had filed W.P. No. 40343/2011 seeking quashing of the impugned notification, on the ground that the appropriate Government is under an obligation to appoint in every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less than three per cent for persons or class of persons with disability and that if the Government intended to exempt any establishment from the provisions of the section, having regard to the type of work carried on in any department or establishment, then by notification, subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the operations of the provisions. It was contended that while issuing notification bearing No. C.J.R.C. 1/2010 dated 06.08.2011, there being no notification issued exempting the post of Civil Judges in Judicial Department, in terms of the proviso to Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1995, the recruitment undertaken being illegal, interference is warranted. The writ petition having opposed by the respondents by making available a notification dated 13.09.2005 issued by the State Government, the petition was dismissed by observing as follows:

It is clear from the perusal of the notification dated 13.09.2005 that, the State Government has exercised its power and has identified the post that can be reserved for persons with disability. The State Government has also in exercise of the powers vested in it has exempted certain post from the operation of the provisions. Thus the exercise done by the State Government is traceable to both section 32 and 33 of the Act.

It is not in dispute that the posts of Civil Judge for which the process of recruitment is initiated as per the impugned notification falls in category A and therefore is exempted for the purpose of the provisions of the Act. Hence, I do not find any merit in the contention urged by the counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of any specific notification or order issued by the Government exempting the posts of Civil Judges in exercise of the power u/s 33, the notification issued inviting application without earmarking certain posts for persons with disability is bad in law.

The case of the petitioner being identical to the one considered and decided in W.P. No. 40343/2011 on 15.12.2011, for the reasons recorded therein, this writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.

Smt. M.S. Prathima, learned HCGP is permitted to file memo of appearance in four weeks.