Binod Kumar Roy, D.R.Chaudhary, JJ. - (1.) The appellants assail validity of the judgment and order dated 25th September. 1997 passed by a learned single Judge in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 5649 of 1994 filed by the respondent directing appellant No. 1 to offer an appointment to him against class III post which may be existing on the day of the Judgment or if no vacancy is in existence, then to appoint him against the very next vacancy which may occur in his judgeship in near future. The Impugned judgment being short is being reproduced : "Heard Sri Y. S. Bohra. learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri O. P. Singh, learned standing counsel. A recruitment test was held in the year 1992 for selecting candidates for the post of class III employees in Bulandshahr Judgeship. The petitioner was also one of the applicants. Unfortunately, the petitioner became blind though he was earlier a practicing lawyer. The case of the petitioner was not taken into consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that there is a reservation quota of 2% in favour of the physically handicapped persons, which includes three types of persons, namely, blind, deaf and dumb and physically handicapped. The quota of each of the aforesaid categories comes to 67% totaling 2%. in the recruitment under challenge, no physically handicapped person appeared except the petitioner, who was only physically handicapped candidate. The order dated 28.9.1993 contained in Annexure-4 passed by the District Judge. Bulandshahr indicates that he was not aware of the fact that the petitioner is blind person, applied in the aforesaid test. He himself has mentioned in his order that no person, who is blind, has applied for the post and if any person being blind has applied, his case shall be considered separately. In spite of this observation by the learned District Judge in his order, whereby the result of the recruitment was declared, no post was kept vacant for accommodating the petitioner, a blind person. Learned standing counsel made a reference to the averment made in para 9 of the counter- affidavit, to canvass the point that the G.O, dated 26.8.1993. Annexure-1 was not in the knowledge of the appointing authority, at the relevant time. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the petitioner has made out an iron-cast case for being appointed in one of the posts in class III in the Bulandshahr judgeship, under the quota of physically handicapped persons. The writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction to the District Judge, Bulandshahr to offer an appointment to the petitioner against class III post which may be existing today. If no vacancy is in existence at the moment the petitioner shall be appointed against the very next vacancy which may occur in the judgeship in the near future."
(2.) The respondent had filed the aforementioned writ petition 2 praying (i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for the order dated 21st January. 1994 passed by appellant No. 1 rejecting his representation and quash the same, and (ii) to command the appellants to consider him pursuant to 1992 examination for appointment against a class III post in reserved category in the District Court of Bulandshahr.
(3.) The pleadings as set forth in the writ proceedings : 3.1. For grant of the aforementioned two reliefs, the respondent had asserted as follows.--In the year 1992 an advertisement was made for filling 30 vacant posts of class III in the District Court, Bulandshahr and applications were invited by the appellant No. 1 ; he was earlier a practicing advocate but unfortunately in an accident completely lost his eye sight and thereby became totally blind ; he having requisite qualification for the said post applied by submitting his application ; he was issued an Admit Card for the written examination showing his Roll No. 1657 ; he appeared in the written examination and in which he did well and being the sole blind candidate was hopeful for his selection : G.O. dated 26.8.1993 as contained in Annexure-1 was issued giving reservation to candidates under the category of handicapped persons; the appellants issued a list of 30 selected candidates on 28.9.1993 as contained in Annexure-4 without considering his candidature of which he came to know on 12th January. 1994; he made a representation on 15.1.1994 to the appellant No. 1, as contained in Annexure-5, stating all facts praying for considering his case for appointment, but without giving any opportunity of hearing the appellant No. 1 rejected his representation by order dated 21st January, 1994 ; he applied for a copy of the aforesaid order, but it was refused saying that it was an administrative order certified copy of which could not be given; he then requested the concerned clerk to show the order, but his request was turned down ; the allegation that he was unsuccessful is wholly incorrect and baseless; he prays for summoning his answer book and to see as to whether he was successful or not ; the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural Justice ; even though he had qualified for appointment, being within the category of handicapped person and was entitled to be considered, the refusal to consider his candidature Is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The petitioner has brought on the record a copy of the Information. Rules and Directions made in regard to the test as Annexure-2, a copy of the Admit Card is Annexure-3. 3.2. The appellants in their counter-affidavit had stated, inter alia, that the U. P. Ministerial Rules. 1947 provided intermediate as a minimum qualification for the candidates of class III establishment and do not provide for a preference to a person who is highly and additionally qualified ; the petitioner may well practice in law courts with the help of a Junior and continue to work as an advocate ; even otherwise in accordance with the Government Order of 1989, the quota of handicapped persons was completely filled up and there is no more any vacancy against which an additional handicapped person, particularly a blind, can be appointed in the judgeship ; the Government Order of 1989 provide reservation for those persons who were blind since birth whereas the Government Order of 1993 provides reservation for those who became blind later on which was not available in the Judgeship at the time of the recruitment process or at the time of declaration of the result on 28.9.1993 which was received on 11.4.1994: there is no seat or post in class III clerical staff on which the services of a blind person may be utilised; every seat and post requires an incumbent to read and write, whether it be a post of Reader. Ahalmad. Record Keeper, Nazir. Deputy Nazir, Cashier or Deputy Cashier and so on ; there Is no provision for providing a helper to a blind person, if employed : he was not selected as he could not be successful in the competitive written examination ; had there been any vacancy in the cadre of knitting chairs or any other unskilled or partially skilled and unskilled Job of class IV he could have been given employment : In his representation he did not enclose a copy of the 1993 Government Order about which he too had no knowledge which was rejected for the aforesaid reasons after consideration by the then District Judge whose order is neither illegal nor arbitrary or violative of any principle of natural justice ; as far as made known from the staff of the judgeship the order was passed in his presence and within his hearing, who was also given an opportunity of hearing; and that he is not entitled to any relief. 3.3. The respondent had filed a rejoinder stating, inter alia, that he is claiming his appointment in accordance with law against the post reserved for the handicapped persons and not with reference to the factum of being highly qualified ; details of number of vacancies reserved and their total number of appointees have not been given mala fide ; the Government Order of 1993 which was applicable as it was made well before the final selection and it is wholly incorrect to say that It was received on 11.4.1994, though its belated receipt could not take away his right for being considered; it is wholly incorrect to say that the Government Order dated 4.8.1989, appending its copy as Annexure-R.A.-1, provided reservation for only those persons who are blind since birth ; it is wholly incorrect to say that there is no necessity of services of blind persons ; it is denied that the order was passed in his presence ; it is wholly incorrect to say that there are no job suitable for him as it is contrary to the advertisement and the Government Order. 3.4. Annexure-4 to the writ petition contains the list of successful 30 candidates stating that the quota for the handicapped persons stands filled up and there is no blind employee and if there is any blind employee amongst the candidates an information be furnished by the office so that an order be passed separately after looking at his qualification. The Government Orders were also brought on the record by the respondent.;