Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kamal Panwar vs Haryana Vidut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. And ... on 18 March, 2024
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040164
CWP-29159-2018 (O&M) 1 2024:PHHC:040164
and other connected matter
223 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-29159-2018 (O&M)
Date of Decision:18.03.2024
1.
Kamal Panwar ......Petitioner
Versus
Haryana Vidut Parsaran Nigam Limited and others
.....Respondents
2.
CWP-24502-2021 (O&M)
Gurdev Singh
.....Petitioner
Versus
Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited.
.....Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present:- Mr. Sudhanshu Makkar, Advocate for the petitioner
in CWP-29159-2018.
Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Sandeep Dhull, Advocate for the petitioner
in CWP-24502-2021.
Mr. Udit Garg, Advocate for the respondents
in CWP-29159-2018.
Mr. Padamkant Dwivedi, Advocate for the respondent
in CWP-24502-2021.
*****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI J.(Oral)
1. Both the petitions are taken up together for final disposal with
the consent of learned counsel for the parties as facts are common and issues
are inter-related.
2. CWP-29159-2018 titled as Kamal Panwar Vs. Haryana Vidyut
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040164
CWP-29159-2018 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:040164
and other connected matter
Parsaran Nigam Limited and others is taken up first for consideration, since
the second petition bearing CWP No.24502-2021 will be dependant upon the
outcome of this petition.
3. Brief facts of the present case are that the respondents-Nigam had
advertised various posts including the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical)
vide Annexure P-1 in the year 2018. The bifurcation of reservations as
depicted in Annexure R-3 is reproduced as under:-
Sr.No. Name of Name of Gen. SC BC ESM Total Posts Posts reserved for
post utility No. reserved persons (PwD)
of for already included
posts eligible in total posts at
sports Column No.11
persons
(ESP)
already
included
in total
posts at
column
No.11
A B Gen. SC BC-A
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. Assistant HVPNL 13 6 4 2 1 1 1 28 1 4 (2-One leg (OH)
Engineer & 2-Partially
Deaf (HH)
HPGCL 9 3 3 1 1 - - 17 1 2 (1-PD, 1-One
Leg (OL)
UHBVNL 11 3 2 - - - 1 17 2 3 (2-PD, 1-One
Leg (OL)
DHBVNL 25 10 7 1 1 - - 44 1 2 (1-PD, 1-One
leg (OL)
Grand
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is a physically handicapped person and he is already working in the
office of respondents-Corporation on the post of Grid Station Operator and he
applied against the category of One Leg Ortho Handicapped which is so
depicted in his application form vide Annexure P-2 in which he depicted his
status of Physically Handicapped as follows:-
Physically Handicapped: Handicapped : Yes (One Leg (Ortho
Handicapped)
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040164
CWP-29159-2018 (O&M) 3 2024:PHHC:040164
and other connected matter
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the
petitioner is handicapped with one leg, he ought to have been considered for
the same but he has been rendered ineligible in view of the permanent
disability certificate (Annexure P-5) wherein it has been provided for the
present petitioner that he was suffering from Congenital Paresis of ®
Upper/Lower Limb to the extent of 40% disability. He further submitted that
the petitioner is although having disability qua the upper limb as well but that
would not mean that the petitioner can be non-suited only because of the
reason since he was handicapped from one leg also and the reservation in the
advertisement was for one leg disability and therefore he has been wrongly
rendered ineligible for the selection process. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has also argued that the petitioner could not have applied for stating in the
application form other than what has been so stated in the advertisement itself
which only provides for disability of one leg etc. He further submitted that one
another candidate namely Ashwani Chahal was having two legs disability and
he has been selected against the general category and therefore petitioner is
also entitled for the grant of reservation for the aforesaid post.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-Nigam
submitted that when the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Engineer
vide Annexure P-2, he specifically stated his status to be One Leg (Ortho)
Handicapped as aforesaid and this was a misleading declaration made by the
petitioner whereas as per the medical certificate (Annexure P-5) the petitioner
was suffering from Cogenital parasis of ® upper/lower limb i.e. both upper
and lower limbs and in this way he could not have been considered against the
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040164
CWP-29159-2018 (O&M) 4 2024:PHHC:040164
and other connected matter
aforesaid reserved category. He submitted that the present case is for the post
of Assistant Engineer and for which it was within the prerogative of the
respondent-Nigam to have looked into the parameters of reservation because
for the post of Assistant Engineer only a limited reservation can be provided
and in case a person is having both disability of lower and upper limbs then
he/she will not be able to perform his/her duties. He further referred to Clause
14 (20) of the advertisement i.e. general information and the same is at page
34 of the paper-book that in case any information provided by the candidate is
not found true then the candidature is liable to be rejected and the same is
reproduced as under:-
"20 Eligibility of the candidates can be checked at any stage
during/after the selection process. Candidature is liable to be rejected
at any stage of recruitment/selection process or after joining, if any
information provided by the candidate is not found in conformity with
the eligibility criteria notified or if HPUs comes across any
evidence/knowledge that the qualification, experience and any other
particulars indicated in application/other forms/formats are not
recognized/false/misleading and/or amounts to suppression of
information/particulars which should have been brought to the notice of
HPUs.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents-Nigam also submitted that
rather to avoid any confusion and to seek guidance the respondents had rather
sought clarification earlier from the Director, Social Justice & Empowerment
Department, Haryana, Chandigarh, and it was so informed by the aforesaid
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040164
CWP-29159-2018 (O&M) 5 2024:PHHC:040164
and other connected matter
Director vide Annexure R-4 that only the categories of One
Leg/Orthopedically Handicapped and Partially Deaf/Hearing Handicapped can
be considered as reserved category for the purpose of appointment on the post
of Assistant Engineer/Junior Engineer and Shift Attendant. The relevant
portion of Annexure R-4 is reproduced as under:-
It is hereby informed that following handicap category can
work on the posts of Assistant Engineer/Junior Engineer.
(i) (OL) One Leg/Orthopedically Handicapped;
(ii) (PD) Partially Deaf/Hearing Handicapped;
8. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that in this way
the petitioner did not fall in the reserved category and there was no occasion
for the respondents-Nigam to have even relaxed the qualification in view of
aforesaid Annexure R-4. He also submitted that even otherwise also it was
the duty of the petitioner to have disclosed true facts in the application form
and which has not been done as aforesaid and his candidature otherwise also is
liable to be rejected in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances. He
further submitted that the petitioner is already working in the respondent-
Nigam on a different post but for the post of Assistant Engineer/Junior
Engineer, if a person is having two types of disabilities i.e. on lower limb as
well as upper limb then the respondents-Nigam cannot appoint him/her
because of the nature of duties especially in field work. He further submitted
that even otherwise also the aforesaid categorization of reservation and setting
of parameters of disability has not been challenged by the petitioner in the
present petition and he himself participated in the selection process in this
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040164
CWP-29159-2018 (O&M) 6 2024:PHHC:040164
and other connected matter
regard. He further submitted that so far as the contention raised by learned
counsel for the petitioner regarding one person namely Ashwani Chahal is
concerned who was physically handicapped with two legs is concerned, he
submitted that the aforesaid contention is factually incorrect as the aforesaid
Ashwani Chahal was actually physically handicapped with one leg only and
the other leg he was using as compensatory and it cannot be said in the case of
Ashwani Chahal, he was physically handicapped with both legs and
clarification in this regard has been given by the Othopedics Surgeon,
Government Hospital, Hisar vide Annexure P-7 and as such has prayed for
dismissal of the present petition.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
10. It is a case when the petitioner applied in the handicapped
category and in the application form he categorized himself as One Leg
(Ortho) Handicapped. As per learned counsel for the petitioner there was no
other option for two limbs and therefore he had filled up only the category
which has been so provided in the advertisement. It is a case where as per the
advertisement the reservation was meant for one leg disability in view of the
functions and duties which are to be performed by a Junior Engineer/Assistant
Engineer which was to be filled up by the present advertisement. However, as
per Annexure P-5, the petitioner is stated to be having disability of total 40%
of one leg and also of the upper limb and this was the ground on the basis of
which the candidature of the petitioner was rejected. As per the learned
counsel for the petitioner the petitioner satisfies the condition of one leg
handicapped but as per the learned counsel for the respondents the aforesaid
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040164
CWP-29159-2018 (O&M) 7 2024:PHHC:040164
and other connected matter
disability of one leg was also coupled with the upper limb as well and
therefore the duties of Junior Engineer/Assistant Engineer cannot be
discharged in view of the letter at Annexure R-7. There is no challenge of
reservation as stated in the advertisement.
11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the
view that in the absence of any challenge to the aforesaid categorization, this
Court would not sit into the prerogative and perception of the respondents-
department whereby considering the nature of duties to be performed, specific
reservation has been mentioned. In case the duties of Assistant
Engineer/Junior Engineer (Electrical) is to be performed in the field etc. and a
person is physically handicapped qua both upper and lower limbs then it lies
within the wisdom of the recruiting agency to see as to whether such person
should be recruited to a particular job having regard to the nature of duties or
not and this Court cannot sit on the judgment and wisdom of the respondents-
Nigam by substituting its own opinion.
12. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the present petition is
devoid of any merit and hence dismissed.
CWP-24502-2021
13. The present petition has been filed whereby the petitioner had
applied for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) against the SC Category
and after declaring the final result, the petitioner was at waiting list No.1 and
admittedly one of the SC category candidate who was selected did not join
and as per the advertisement, the same was to be filled up within a period of
one year. The factual position is not disputed by any of the learned counsel
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040164
CWP-29159-2018 (O&M) 8 2024:PHHC:040164
and other connected matter
for the parties that one person namely Gunjan did not join and as per the
advertisement within a period of one year, the post had to be filled up from the
waiting list who was at Sr. No.1.
14. Mr. Padamkant Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondents has
stated that the present petitioner is at Sr. No.1 in waiting list and he could not
be appointed because of the interim order passed in the aforesaid CWP
No.29159-2018. He submitted that since the other connected writ petition as
aforesaid has been dismissed by this Court, the petitioner would now be
considered against the SC Category and his case will be processed within a
period of two months from today.
15. In view of the aforesaid statement made by Mr. Padamkant
Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondents, the present petition is allowed.
16. The respondents-Nigam is directed to consider and process the
case of the petitioner immediately under the SC Category for the post of
Assistant Engineer (Electrical) and thereafter in case he is granted the
appointment then his appointment shall be with effect from the date when the
post became vacant and his date of appointment shall be notionally fixed from
that date. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not be granted any
monetary benefits in this regard but he shall certainly be granted benefits of
seniority, notional increments and other consequential benefits except arrears
for the time he did not work on the post.
(JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
JUDGE
18.03.2024
shweta
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
8 of 8
