Ashwin Jawaharlal Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors
2018 Latest Caselaw 2502 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                           Date of Order: April 20, 2018

+                   W.P.(C) 3859/2018 & CM 15247/2018
       ASHWIN JAWAHARLAL MEHTA                 ..... Petitioner
                   Through: Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Mr. Nikunj
                   Dayal and Mr. Shubham Arya, Advocates

                    versus

       UNION OF INDIA & ORS                         .....Respondents
                     Through: Mr. Jaswant Rai Aggarwal and Ms.
                     Satvika Goyal, Advocates for respondent No.1

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                             ORDER

(ORAL)

1. Petitioner's son-Bhagyadeep Ashwinbhai Mehta was shortlisted for the post of Officer/Assistant Officer and had appeared for the interview and group discussion held on 23rd June, 2014, after clearing the Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering (GATE), but had not received the appointment letter. In this regard, petitioner had sent a complaint of 1st November, 2014, which is declined by impugned order of 15 th February, 2017 (Annexure P-1) by observing that there is no violation of provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 (for short 'the PwD Act, 1995').

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that nearly 100 posts are reserved for persons with disability and out of them, 90 are

backlog/shortfall posts and so, in such a situation, the purpose of the PwD Act, 1995 is defeated as eligible candidates even after qualifying, do not get appointed. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that the composite score is on higher side and it needs to be scaled down.

3. Upon advance notice, Mr. Jaswant Rai Aggarwal, Advocate appears and submits that out of two vacancies, one vacancy has been filled up and the candidate, who was selected, had got composite score of 55 as against petitioner's composite score of 31. He further submits that the backlog vacancies are carried forward and only meritorious candidates are required to be selected as merit cannot be compromised.

4. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order and the material on record, I find that though petitioner's complaint relates to GATE, 2014, but petitioner had also appeared for GATE, 2015 and in both the examinations, petitioner's score was less than the minimum composite score of 40, whereas the score of the candidate, who has been appointed, was 55.

5. The aspect of backlog of 90 posts was not highlighted in the Representation and so, impugned order is silent on it. Be that as it may. What should be the benchmark is for respondent to decide and not for the Court. However, since there is backlog of 90 posts reserved for the persons with disabilities, therefore, first respondent is required to reconsider the benchmark i.e., minimum composite score of 40, so that the vacancies under this category do not remain unfilled for a long time. Although, petitioner's Representation has been rightly rejected by respondent, but respondent is called upon to look into the backlog aspect

and to take effective steps to remedy it. Let it be so done with expedition and petitioner be apprised of it. Compliance of this order be promptly made and placed before this Court.

6. With aforesaid directions, this petition and the application are disposed of.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE APRIL 20, 2018 s