AJAY KUMAR PANDEY vs STATE OF U.P.
SUPREME COURT MONTHLY
AUGUST 2022
2022(8) SCM 1
AJAY KUMAR PANDEY vs STATE OF U.P.
REPORTABLE
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4811 OF 2022
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 18854 OF 2019)
D/d: AUGUST 01, 2022
Bench:
J. HEMANT GUPTA, J. VIKRAM NATH
Headnote:
Selection to post of Safai-Karmis – Reservation – Locomotor disability – Appellants Cannot claim appointment against the post reserved for disabled candidates only for the reason that they are locomotor disabled candidates when such post was not reserved for the Safai-Karmis.
Issues involved:
- Selection to the post of Safai-Karmis.
- Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1952
Facts:
Advertisement was published on 16.6.2008 inviting applications for 1651 posts of safai-karmis in District Mau, out of which 346 posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste, 34 for Scheduled Tribe and 445 for Other Backward Class. It is further stated that reservation would also be in respect of the advertised posts to women, disabled candidates, freedom fighters and ex-servicemen as per government decisions, though the number of such reserved posts has not been specified.
- There were 50 posts reserved for disabled candidates. However, such 50 posts were said to be on the basis of 3% of the total posts advertised and not as per the reservation policy of appointment of the disabled candidates in the State.
- In respect of disabled candidates, the State Government had circulated a G.O. dated 07.05.1999 identifying the posts which can be manned by such suitable disabled candidates under Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1952
- Appellants, being persons with locomotor disability, submitted their application forms with locomotor disability certificates to the effect, that Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey had 50% Loco Motor Disability. Chandra Bali Ram had Loco Motor Disability of PPRP left upper limb 60%. Ram Bhawan Singh had Muscular Dystrophy of PPRP Right upper limb 70%.
- It is the case of the appellants that they participated in the cycle test and also appeared for interview but were not appointed, which led them to file writ petition before the High Court in the year 2018.
HELD:
We find that the G.O. dated 07.05.1999 could not be set aside in exercise of the power of judicial review on the basis of cursory glance of the G.O. dated 07.05.1999. The identification of the posts which can be filled up by candidates suffering from disabilities is the responsibility of the appropriate Government under Section 32 of the Act, which is the State Government in the present case. Once such exercise has been carried out, the appropriate Government in terms of Section 33 of the Act shall reserve 1% each for the visual disability, hearing impairment and locomotor disability. The identification of the posts and the category of the disabled candidates who could be appointed against the posts reserved is the power conferred on the appropriate Government. Such exercise and the reservation of posts could not have been interfered with without holding such reservation to be totally arbitrary, irrational or against the objectives sought to be achieved and on judicially recognised principles.
18. We find that the order of the High Court striking the G.O. as a whole is on the basis of surmises and conjectures, thus the said order cannot be sustained in law. Since the posts of Safai-Karmis are not identified to be filled up from amongst the candidates having locomotor disability, the appellant could not be appointed against such category of post, even though they have appeared for cycling test or for interview. The appellants were not eligible for the appointment against such posts in terms of the advertisement. The G.O. dated 07.05.1999 is part of the advertisement and therefore, the appellants cannot claim appointment against the post reserved for disabled candidates only for the reason that they are locomotor disabled candidates when such post was not reserved for the Safai-Karmis.
19. Consequently, the order of the High Court striking aside the G.O. dated 7.5.1999 is set aside.
Read complete Judgement below:-
Post a Comment