Pawan Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another
2016 Latest Caselaw 3000 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 4
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3837 of 2016
 
Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bal Krishna Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nafees Ahmad
 

 
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.

The petitioner is a differently able person. He made an application in pursuance to an advertisement dated 07.07.2015 for the appointment on the post of Lekhpal.

The grievance of the petitioner is that he appeared in the written examination but when the result was declared, not a single differently able person has been selected. From the result, it is evident that no reservation has been extended to the physically challenged person.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of 33 posts, one post ought to have been reserved for the physically challenged person.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since.99/% ought to have been rounded off to one post, thus, one post ought to have been reserved for the differently able person. He has placed reliance on a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. National Federation of Blind and others, Civil Appeal No.9096 of 2013.

Learned Standing Counsel submits that on 33 posts, the calculation of 3% comes to .99%, therefore, no reservation has been made. He has received the instruction, which is taken on record.

Matter needs consideration.

Learned Standing Counsel may file counter affidavit within eight weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter.

Learned Standing Counsel will produce the merit list of the General Candidate, OBC Candidate, SC Candidate separately and the combined merit list on the next date fixed.

List this case in the week commencing 08.08.2016.

Considering the facts of the case, it is provided that one post shall be kept reserved till the next date of list.

Order Date :- 25.5.2016AU