RAJESH KUMAR BENIWAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Haryana Subordinate Services Selection Board (hereinafter called the Board) advertised 96 posts of Taxation Inspectors on 7.7.1988. The petitioner being a physically handicapped person made an application in response to the advertisement as it had been provided therein that the reservations would be as per Haryana Government instructions. The petitioner was thereafter called upon to take the written test and after having qualified for the same was called for interview and was ultimately selected as a general category candidate. Two other persons namely Hukam Chand and J.S. Bedi who had also applied against the physically handicapped category but had remained unsuccessful challenged the selection through CWP No. 11266/1991 and CWP No. 14290/1990 on the ground that no reservation had been made in favour of the physically handicapped persons. These writ petitions were disposed of with a direction to the State of Haryana to consider their case as physically handicapped person. It is the admitted position that subsequently these two persons wee given appointment on the basis of two existing vacant posts and they continue to be in service till today. The respondent State of Haryana thereafter advertised 106 posts of Taxation Inspectors in the year 1993 and even here, no posts were reserved for the physically handicapped category candidates. In the meanwhile the selection made in 1988 was challenged in this Court though without success. The matter was then agitated in the Supreme Court and vide its orders of May, 1994, the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the selection and issued directions to re-advertise the posts and make a fresh selection with a further stipulation that those candidates who had applied in response to the advertisement of 1988 were not to apply again. The petitioner once again joined the process of selection and his case was considered as a general category candidate. In the written test he obtained 132 marks out of 200, but was not called for interview in the light of the decision of the Subordinate Services Selection Board Haryana (Annexure P2 to the petition) which provided that interview letters were to be sent only to such candidates from the general category who had obtained 138 marks or above. The petitioner has challenged his non- selection on the ground that he was a physically handicapped person and as per Haryana Govt. instructions Annexures P3 and P4 to the writ petition, 3% seats were to be reserved in each selection on the basis of roster points 26, 52 and 82 and as no reservation had been made for the physically handicapped persons for the two selections that had been made for the post of Taxation Inspectors, the selection by the respondents was unjustified.

(2.) A reply has been put in on behalf of the respondent No. 1, as also respondent No. 2 (the Subordinate Services Selection Board). The stand that has been taken is that no reservation had been made in the selection concerned for physically handicapped persons as the process of their selection and appointment had been taken out of the purview of the Board. In this connection, reliance has been placed on Annexures R2 and R3 appended with the reply filed by respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 has also appended Annexure R1 dated 20.9.1983 which is to the same effect.

(3.) It is the conceded position that the petitioner had applied as a physically handicapped candidate and his form had been accepted and entertained as such. It is also the conceded position that Hukam Chand and J.S. Bedi who had also applied for the post as physically handicapped persons but had not been selected at the time of the first selection as they had marks below the petitioner continued to be in service as a result of their matter having been reconsidered under the order of this Court. To my mind, therefore, it is evident that the petitioner had a prior right of appointment qua Hukam Chand and J.S. Bedi as a physically handicapped candidate and the mere circumstance that the first selection was quashed by Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot take away the right that had accrued to the petitioner as his case was distinguishable.