S.R.Singh, J. - (1.) The question that begs consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioner, who suffered impairment due to locomotor disability to the extent of 20%, is entitled as "physically handicapped" candidate, to get the benefit of the U. P. Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependants of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act. 1993 as it stands amended by the U. P. Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependants of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) (Amendment) Act. 4 of 1997?
(2.) Background leading to the filing of the present petition draped in brevity is that the petitioner, to begin with, applied for appointment to the post of Asstt. Prosecuting Officer pursuant to the notification issued by the U. P. Public Services Commission vide the advertisement issued on 29.12.1997. The petitioner belongs to other backward class (O.B.C.) category and also suffers from physical impairment and as such, he claimed to be extended the benefit of reservation simultaneously on two counts, i.e., both as O.B.C. as well as of being physically handicapped candidate. In the written examination, the result of which was made public on 28.1.1999, the petitioner was declared to have romped home for interview and was accordingly issued call letter for interview slated for 15.3.1999. He appeared in the interview in response to the call letter and in the ultimate analysis, when the final result was published, his name found place in the final select list as O.B.C.-P.H. category candidate and though, he was displayed in the list of successful candidates in the category of O.B.C. plus physically handicapped but against his name, a proviso was scripted that his selection was provisional inasmuch as the certificate of O.B.C. was not in conformity with the prescribed proforma. In the course of interview, he was asked to submit requisite certificate which, it is alleged in the writ petition, was presented by the petitioner in time. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Commission, it has been averred that the petitioner could not succeed as O.B.C. candidate inasmuch as the last candidate selected under that category had secured more marks and before recommending the name of the selected candidates to the Government, it was noticed that the petitioner was not eligible to get the benefit available to a physically handicapped candidate since his disability was only 20% while the minimum degree of disability according to the Government of India's notification, should be 40% in order to make one eligible for any concession or benefit as physically handicapped candidate. The candidature of the petitioner was rescinded by the Commission and he was communicated with accordingly. The cancellation of the candidature, according to the counter-affidavit was in accord with the terms and condition of para 17 of the advertisement wherein it was specifically mentioned that if it was found on any subsequent stage that a candidate was not eligible or that his application should have been rejected as not entertainable initially, his candidature would be rejected and if selected, the recommendation would be withheld.
(3.) I have heard Sri H. N. Singh for the petitioner, Sri Kripa Shanker Singh, standing counsel representing the State and Sri Pushpendra Singh, appearing for the Commission.;