Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sunita vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:41103) on 8 October, 2024
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:41103]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16448/2024
Sunita D/o Shri Babu Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Manjuo Ki
Dhani, Village Bajrang Nagar, Post Malam Singh Ki Sidd, Tehsil
Bap, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, State Health And Family Welfare Institution,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Director (Non-Gazetted), Medical And Health
Services, Rajasthan, Tilak Marg, Swasthya Bhawan,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jayram Saran
Mr. Bharat Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Dave
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
08/10/2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely
covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court led by
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.572/2023 (State of Rajasthan
& Ors. V/s Sunita) and other connected matters decided on
31.08.2024. The relevant portion of the said judgment is
reproduced as under :-
[2024:RJ-JD:41103] (2 of 3) [CW-16448/2024]
"29. A bare look at the disability certificates issued in favour
of the respondents indicates that the percentage of disability
expressed/disclosed by the doctors in the medical examination
report(s)/disability certificate(s) issued in favor of the
respondents is with reference to a particular leg/limb only.
There is nothing on record to establish/indicate the percentage
of disability suffered by the respondents in other leg/other
body part. In the opinion of this Court, if a person is suffering
from disability to a certain extent in other leg or body part the
same by any stretch of imagination cannot be construed to
mean that the candidate shall not be fit to perform his/her
duty. Partial deformity/ shortening/ weakening of muscular
strength in other body part would not render a person
ineligible to be appointed on the advertised post, particularly
when he/she is capable of performing all the duties and
functions attached to the advertised post.
30. The intention of the legislation in bringing the Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995 and Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Act, 2016 is to ensure full participation of the people with
disabilities in public employment. A welfare state is under an
obligation to ensure that the person suffering from disabilities
should not be deprived from public employment despite their
possessing eligibility and merit to hold the post on hyper-
technical grounds or for ipse-dixit reasons. All-round efforts
are required to be made to ensure that no opportunity is left
out for integration of persons with special abilities into the
social main stream to achieve the ultimate object of enacting
aforementioned special legislations viz., all persons with
special abilities shall get a dignified life full of equal
opportunities without any discrimination.
32. In view of aforesaid discussion, the action of the appellant-
State in denying appointment to the respondents under the PH
category (PH-OL category) is declared bad in the eye of law.
33. We uphold the direction issued by the learned Single Judge
to the appellant- State to prepare a fresh select/merit list for
PH category by placing the eligible respondents at appropriate
place in the select/merit list in their own category, keeping in
view the observations recorded by this Court with respect to
above issues.
[2024:RJ-JD:41103] (3 of 3) [CW-16448/2024]
34. The necessary exercise in conformity with this order shall
be undertaken by the appellant- State within a period of 2
months from the date of this Judgment. No order as to costs".
3. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to
refute the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
4. In view of the submissions made before this Court, the
present writ petition is allowed in terms of the judgment passed
by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sunita (supra).
The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner
for grant of appointment on the post of Female Health Worker in
the light of the judgment passed in the case of Sunita (supra).
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
39-SunilS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
