BHARGAV DUTTA ALIAS BHARGAV KUMAR DUTTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Bhargav Dutta Alias Bhargav Kumar Dutta
Union Of India And 3 Ors
Click here to view full judgement.
L S Jamir, J. -
(1.) The respondents/Oil India Limited issued a Notification dated 09-03-2012 for Special Recruitment Drive to wipe out the backlog vacancies of persons with disabilities (PWDS) and invited applications from eligible candidates (domicile of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh) for recruitment to various posts which included 8 posts of Junior Assistant-1 (Clerk-cum-Computer Operator) Grade-V. Out of the 8 posts, 3 posts were reserved for hearing impairment, 2 posts for visually impaired and 3 posts for Orthopedically challenged. The petitioner being eligible, applied for the post of Junior Assistant-1 (Clerk-cum-Computer Operator) Grade-V reserved for persons with hearing impairment. The application was accepted and the petitioner was issued a call letter dated 26-11-2012 for screening (written) test for the post of Junior Assistant-1 (Clerk-cum-Computer Operator) Grade-V to be held on 30-12-2012. The petitioner was successful in the screening (written) Test and accordingly, a call letter dated 09-07-2013 was served upon him for appearing in the Computer Operation Skill Test (Stage-II) to be held on 12-08-2013. Thereafter, the result of the Computer Operator Skill Test/Shorthand and Computer Typing Test results were declared wherein, the Roll Number of the petitioner also appeared. Thereafter, the petitioner, by call letter dated 03-02-2014 was asked to appear for the interview/vivavoce to be held on 06-03-2014 at Geophysics Department, Inside Industrial Area, Oil India Limited, Duliajan. The petitioner appeared in the said interview and thereafter, the respondents declared the final selection test result on 20-05-2014 wherein, the petitioner was not selected. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is praying for a direction for re-conducting the interview/viva-voce test on the ground that when the interview was conducted , the same was held inside a big hall which was located near the Power House of the Industrial Area, Oil India Limited, Duliajan and as the petitioner being a hearing impaired person having disability of 90% was unable to clearly understand the questions that were put to him and that none of the examiners adopted the sign language to help the petitioner to properly understand the questions that were put to him.
(2.) Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned senior counsel/Standing Counsel, Oil India Limited appearing for the respondents.
(3.) Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that after clearing the screening (written) test and Computer Operation Skill Test, the petitioner was invited to appear for the interview/viva-voce which was schedule to be held on 06-03-2014. He submits that the date of interview/viva-voce was subsequently rescheduled to 20-03-2014 and 21-03-2014. On the date of interview, it is submitted, that the interview/viva-voce was held in a big hall which was located near the Power House of the Industrial Area, Oil India Limited, Duliajan and though the petitioner was wearing hearing aid, he could not clearly understand the questions that were put to him by the examiners. Further, none of the examiners had the expertise to conduct interview of persons with hearing impairment inasmuch as, none of the examiners adopted the sign language to enable the petitioner to properly understand the questions that were being put to him. As a result, the petitioner could not qualify in the viva-voce test. It is also submitted that the father of the petitioner preferred an application under R.T.I Act, 2005 seeking information, amongst others, as to how many candidates were selected in the category of hearing impairment and the marks that were obtained by the petitioner in the written test and the computer competency test. In response, by letter dated 03-07-2014, the father of the petitioner was informed that no candidates were selected under the category of hearing impairment and in the annexure enclosed to the reply, the petitioner is found to have obtained highest marks than the other candidates.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.