Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/49/2022 on 31 August, 2022
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPSB No.49 of 2022
Shri Vipin Sanghi, C.J.
Shri Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, J.
Ms. Snigdha Tiwari and Mr. Abhijay Negi,
learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Brief Holder for
the State.
Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for the
Review Applicant-respondent no.2.
MCC/5/2022 (Review Application)
By this application, the respondent seeks review
and recall of the part of our judgment dated
27.07.2022 whereby we have quashed the entire
advertisement dated 04.12.2021 and permitted the
respondent-Commission to issue a fresh advertisement
strictly in compliance with Rule 11(4) of the Rights of
Persons with Disability Rules, 2017 and the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indra
Sawhney decided in 1992.
Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the
respondent/review applicant submits that after the
impugned advertisement was issued, which did not
provide for Horizontal Reservation for persons with
disabilities in terms of Rule 11(4) of the Rights of
Persons with Disability Rules, 2017 and the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Indra
Sawhney, the respondents have received in all 20,449
applications. They were scrutinized and their API
scores were calculated and 1540 candidates were
short-listed.
Mr. Joshi submits that the aforesaid exercise
undertaken by the respondents is rather cumbersome
and time consuming.
He submits that they will comply with the
directions issued by the Court and the respondent may
be permitted to issue a corrigendum to the
advertisement in question inviting applications from
benchmark disability candidates while notifying
reservation to the extent of 4% of the cadre strength of
each group of posts.
He submits that on such applications which are
received in pursuance to the corrigendum from the
benchmark disability candidates would be similarly
scrutinized whereafter the selection process would be
taken further.
Mr. Joshi submits that this procedure would also
satisfy the concerns of the petitioners and requirement
of the law.
We have heard the learned counsel.
Looking to the exercise already undertaken by
the respondent which is stated to be time consuming
and cumbersome, we modify the directions issued by
us in paragraph nos.11 and 12 of our judgment dated
27.07.2022.
Accordingly, while preserving the advertisement
dated 04.12.2021, we direct the respondents to
compute the 4% vacancies which are bound to be
reserved for the benchmark disability candidates
falling in different categories in terms of the law and
in compliance with Rule 11(1) and Rule 11(4) of the
Rights of Persons with Disability Rules, 2017 read
with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme in Indra
Sawhney decided in 1992.
The respondents shall thereafter, issue a
corrigendum wherein stating that applications are
invited from the candidates with Benchmark
visibility falling in different categories while also
indicating the number of posts against which
horizontal reservation would be granted. The
respondents shall examine the applications which are
received in pursuance of the corrigendum in the same
way as they have been examined in response to the
initial advertisement. The respondents may,
thereafter, proceed further with the selection process.
We make it clear that the corrigendum that may
be issued should be of the equal prominence and
should be published in the same manner in which the
original advertisement was published.
Review application stands disposed of.
(R.C. Khulbe, J.) (Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)
31.08.2022
SS/RB
