Suruk Ali vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Heard Mr. R. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A. appearing for the State-respondents.

The petitioner herein, Md. Suruk Ali is a physically challenged person. He responded to an advertisement dated 24.06.2015 wherein Education(Social Welfare & Social Education) Department, Government of Tripura invited applications from physically disabled persons suffering from 40 % (forty per cent) or more disability (having possession of five years permanent certificate) and who are permanent residents of Tripura, were informed that they can apply for Group-C and Group-D temporary posts with fixed pay under the Government of Tripura for LDC/Junior Personal Assistant/Assistant Demonstrator /Agri-Assistant/Auditor/Junior Store Keeper/Work Assistant/Tehshildar etc. The said Department had received the applications on 14.07.2015.

The respondent No.3 vide notification dated 24.05.2016 published a list of selected candidates wherein it was seen that a total of 89 candidates were recommended for appointment to the post under Group-C, out of which 43 belonged to the category of Visual disability, 26 to the category of Locomotor disability, 20 to the category of Speech and hearing disability. But the petitioner's name did not figure in the category of Locomotor disability. It is not clear to the petitioner whether those selections were made on the basis of merit only.

The petitioner has prayed for a direction of this Court asking the respondents to appoint him in terms of the said advertisement dated 24.06.2015.

The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit it is stated that a total 119 numbers of vacant posts have been received for Group-C as per the verified roster. The Social Welfare and Social Education Department did not clearly receive category wise and cast wise verified posts from few Departments. However, it was clearly mentioned in the newspaper on 30th June, 2015 that the total number of posts may vary for any category. Out of 119 numbers of roster verified posts under Group-C, initially, the Department has distributed/recommended 89 numbers of posts to various Departments and six numbers of posts for Group-C have been kept in abeyance as six number of eligible candidates had submitted different dates in regard to their date of birth in different documents along with their application. Thus, six numbers of posts for Group-C have been retained for the said candidates till the finalization of the necessary verification from concerned certificate issuing authority. Accordingly, after completion of necessary verification, six numbers of posts have been distributed to the Department. Therefore, total 95 numbers of posts have been distributed/recommended to the various Departments. It is further stated that 24 numbers roster verified posts under Group-C could not be distributed by the Social Welfare and Social Education Department due to non-availability of eligible candidates under ST/hearing category. Mr. D. B.hattacharjee, learned G.A., has relied on those averments made in the counter affidavit in course of hearing.

It is clear that 24 numbers of Group-C posts are still lying vacant and these posts are roster verified. The reasons as assigned by the respondents are that suitable candidates were not found from Schedule Tribe/hearing category.

From the said statement made in the counter affidavit, it is revealed that some posts are reserved for the persons having hearing disability. According to me, it amounts to reservation within reservation. Physically handicapped persons themselves form a different class and total 119 numbers of posts are kept reserved for this class of person and all posts are roster verified. Reservation for a particular class i.e., for hearing category persons is not permissible in law. The advertisement as issued by the State-respondents only classified the physically disabled persons as eligible for being appointed to those posts. It was further clarified in the advertisement that the total number of posts may vary for any category. It is also to be kept in mind that the respondents while issuing advertisement did not specify the number of posts to be reserved for persons having any particular type of disability. Having found no such stipulation in the advertisement, in my opinion, the petitioner deserves to be considered for appointment against the vacant posts, otherwise, it would offend Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In the context of the case, and having considered the fact that 24 numbers of roster verified posts under Group-C category are still lying vacant, I direct the State-respondents to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically, and appoint him in any Group-C posts within the said 24 posts, keeping in mind the above observations made by this Court.

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the present writ petition stands disposed. The entire exercise shall be completed within 4(four) months from the date the petitioner shall furnish a copy of this order to the respondent No.3.