Jagesh Chandra Mishra vs Chief Commissioner For Persons ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 596 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          W.P.(C) No. 8667/2010
%                                                      21st January , 2015

JAGESH CHANDRA MISHRA                                       ......Petitioner
                 Through:                 Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate.


                           VERSUS

CHIEF COMMISSIONER FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES & ORS.
                                     ...... Respondents
                 Through:  Mr. Pawan Kumar Aggarwal,
                           Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.            Counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner is not contacting

him, and therefore, he has no instructions for arguing the case. Learned

counsel for the respondent states that in view of the fact that the pleadings

are complete to the extent that counter-affidavits have been filed to the writ

petition, the writ petition be decided on merits.           In my opinion, the

contention of the counsel for the respondent is correct and since the facts

which are required to decide the case on merits exist on record, I am

proceeding to decide the writ petition.

W.P.(C) No. 8667/2010                                                          Page 1 of 4
 2.            A reading of the writ petition shows that petitioner seeks

appointment to the post of Scientific Assistant with the respondent

no.3/Hansraj College on the basis of the selection process which was

commenced pursuant to the advertisement dated 4.10.2008. The case of the

petitioner is that he is entitled to the appointment because the petitioner is a

physically challenged candidate, and being the only physically challenged

candidate, he was bound to be given appointment pursuant to the impugned

advertisement for the post of Scientific Assistant.      Let us examine this

contention as raised by the petitioner.


3.            A reading of the impugned advertisement shows that four posts

were advertised and, out of which three posts were the general posts and the

fourth post was reserved for OBC candidate.          Clearly therefore by the

impugned advertisement no post was reserved for a physically challenged

candidate, and taking that the respondent no.3 had violated the roster point

system of appointment which required the first post to go to a physically

challenged candidate, the remedy of the petitioner should have been to seek

quashing of the impugned advertisement at the relevant time in the year

2008 and to seek an advertisement/selection process as per the roster point

system and consequent appointment to the respondent no.3-college in terms

W.P.(C) No. 8667/2010                                                        Page 2 of 4
 of the roster point system as per which the first post was to be reserved for

the physically challenged candidate and which has not been done. The

petitioner in fact participated in the selection process as per the subject

advertisement, was unsuccessful, and therefore he cannot question that very

advertisement on the ground that by the advertisement one post should have

been reserved for a physically challenged candidate such as the petitioner.

Relief sought of appointment is not available to the petitioner once the

respondent no.3 has acted in terms of the impugned advertisement and the

petitioner unsuccessfully participated in the selection process.


4.            I may note that the petitioner had approached the Court of Chief

Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities and who has passed the order

dated 17.8.2010 noting that the petitioner will be considered now for

subsequent vacancies and the respondent no.3-college will now apply roster

point system, and which order of the Chief Commissioner is also challenged

in the present case, however as stated above, once the petitioner participated

in the selection process in terms of the advertisement and which did not

reserve any post for a physically challenged candidate, petitioner cannot

claim that automatically in the advertisement there should be a reserved post




W.P.(C) No. 8667/2010                                                      Page 3 of 4
 for a physically challenged candidate merely because the roster point system

of the respondent no.3-college requires such a reservation.


5.            As already stated above, if such a reservation was required the

issue was of challenging the advertisement at the relevant stage by requiring

the filling up of posts by seeking that one post being reserved as per the

roster point system for physically challenged candidate, and which

admittedly was not done by the petitioner.


6.            Dismissed.




JANUARY 21, 2015                             VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib