The Court noted that there was no doubt about the petitioner being specially-abled, and his consequent entitlement to the benefit of reservation meant for PwD.
“ … this Court is of the unhesitant opinion that having reserved four vacancies to be filled up by PWD candidates and having permitted the General Category candidates to participate in the recruitment process, there was no scope for the authorities to further reserve those four vacancies in PWD category to be filled up only by candidates belonging to OBC/ MOBC or ST(H) category,” the order stated.
The single-Judge noted how 3 of the vacancies could not be filled since no PwD candidate belonging to OBC/ MOBC/ ST(H) was available. This fact made it evident that even if the petitioner was recommended for appointment as a vet against one of the three vacancies, the same would not cause prejudice to any candidate belonging to OBC/MOBC/ ST(H), the Court observed.
The APSC had not been able to state why such a recourse was not taken, the judge said.
As per persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act of 1995, adopted as part of fulfilling commitments to the Beijing Declaration, there is a duty upon the State and its instrumentalities to reserve posts for PwD, the Court noted.
“The Act of 1995 does not make any discrimination amongst the persons with disabilities on the basis of caste, creed and religion in the matter of opportunities of employment,” the Court underscored.
The Court, therefore, allowed the petition and held that the APSC’s notification was “unsustainable in law” and set it aside.
The respondents were directed to consider and dispose of the case of the petitioner for appointment as sought, within 60 days.
Source: Barandbench
