Allahabad High Court
Shalini Singh vs Union Of India And 6 Others on 5 December, 2017
Bench: Pankaj Mithal, Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
A F R
Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 33067 of 2017
Petitioner :- Shalini Singh
Respondent :- Union Of India And 6 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- R.K. Shahi,Virendra Nath Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- Devendra Pratap Singh,Chandra Prakash Yadav
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
Heard Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner is suffering from loco motor disability to the extent of 65%. He is otherwise qualified and eligible to hold a post of Post Graduate Teacher (Sociology) in the secondary school.
The petitioner by means of this petition is seeking quashing of the advertisement dated 22.3.2017 published by the Kendriya Vidyalaya, Varanasi Hindu University Campus, Varanasi inviting application for contractual appointment of a Post Graduate Teacher (Sociology) in the institution and the order dated 18.4.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Bench, Allahabad by which her original application challenging the aforesaid advertisement and for calling her for interview has been rejected.
The contention of Sri Pandey is that under Section 33 of The Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection Of Rights And Full Participation) Act, 1995 it is responsibility of the every Government to ensure that in every establishment three per cent of the vacancies are filled up by persons with disability.
The aforesaid provision is reproduced herein-below:
"33. Reservation of posts.--Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less than three per cent for persons or class of persons with disability of which one per cent each shall be reserved for persons suffering from -
(i) blindness or low vision;
(ii) hearing impairment;
(iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy, in the posts identified for each disability:
Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any department or establishment, by notification subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section."
A simple reading of the aforesaid provision reveals that the Government has to ensure in every establishment appointment of three per cent of persons with disability of which one per cent each shall be for the following persons:
(i) blindness or low vision;
(ii) hearing impairment;
(iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy.
In view of the above, the petitioner who is suffering from locomotor disability to the extent of 65% is entitled to be considered against one per cent quota for the disability of the category she is having as per Section 33 read with Section 39 of the Act.
The aforesaid reservation is apparently in respect of regular appointments on substantive posts against sanctioned posts. This is implicit by the expression "percentage of vacancies" used in Section 33 of the Act. The question of vacancies would only arise if there are sanctioned vacant posts. The contractual appointments are not against sanctioned vacant posts rather they are without reference to any post. In the case in hand the advertisement is for contractual appointment and not for any regular or substantive appointment against sanctioned post. The reservation is to be applied on regular or substantive appointment against sanctioned posts and not in appointments on contractual basis which is to be made for a specified period.
In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled for any reservation in the appointments against aforesaid advertisement and there is no illegality in the advertisement dated 22.3.2017 in not providing reservation as per Section 33 of Act.
The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.12.2017
Brijesh
