- (1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the corrigendum published in the newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' dated 1 -2 -2001 limiting the consideration of physically handicapped candidates for the appointment of Executive Trainee only to the disciplines of Electrical/Mechanical Engineering (Annexure -10 to the writ petition). A further prayer has been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment as an Executive Trainee in Electronic discipline in pursuance of the corrigendum published in the newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' dated 1 -2 -2001 without subjecting the petitioner to a fresh written examination and to grant appointment to the petitioner as such.
(2.) THE petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste and is a physically disabled person having suffered from Polio. True copies of the certificates in this connection are Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition. The petitioner claims to have obtained a Bachelor of Technology Degree in Electronics Engineering from Harcourt Butler Technological Institute, Kanpur and thereafter successfully completed one year Apprenticeship in the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Kanpur Division. In response to an advertisement dated 21 -8 -1999 published in the daily newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' inviting applications from the Engineers for appointment as Executive Trainee, the petitioner also applied. In the written examination held on 9 -1 -2001, the petitioner appeared and having qualified, he was interviewed. However, the petitioner's name was not included in the list of selected candidates and the selected candidates have been granted appointment vide Office Order dated 1 -2 -2000 (Annexure -8 to the writ petition). The petitioner claims that he was the only candidate belonging to the physically handicapped category who had qualified in the written examination and therefore, inaction on the part of the respondents in not declaring the petitioner to have been finally selected, is clearly unjust and thus the respondents are liable to be commanded by a suitable direction to consider him for appointment in this regard. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate submits that the respondents have failed to accord any consideration to the fact that the petitioner was a physically handicapped person although there exists a reservation in favour of such candidates. Shri Khare argued that in view of the reservation available for such candidates since the petitioner happened to be the sole physically handicapped candidate who had qualified in the written test, he was liable to be declared selected. Learned Counsel has invited our attention to Section 33 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Disabilities Act) which prescribes 3% reservation in favour of physically handicapped persons in every establishment under the Government. It has been further submitted by the learned Counsel that after the advertisement dated 21 -8 -1999 (Annexure -5 to the petition) in pursuance of which the petitioner had applied, a corrigendum was issued on 1 -2 -2000 (vide Annexure -10) by which fresh applications were invited from physically handicapped persons for mechanical and engineering disciplines alone. It has been argued that the advertisement dated 21 -8 -1999 covered the disciplines of mechanical, electrical, aeronautical and electronics and in the event of reservation in all the above disciplines for physically handicapped persons as provided in the said original advertisement the petitioner was bound to have been appointed. Learned Counsel submits that in the corrigendum dated 1 -2 -2000 applications have been limited to the disciplines of mechanical and electronics, only with a view to preclude the petitioner from consideration and appointment under the respondents.
(3.) MISS Bharti Sapru, learned Counsel who appears for the respondents in response to the aforesaid submissions stated that Section 33 of the Act states that every appropriate Government, shall appoint in every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less than 3% for persons with disabilities. According to learned Counsel, in view of Section 32 of the Act the appropriate Government has first to identify the posts in the establishment which can be reserved for persons with disability, and unless there is such identification no reservation can be made for physically disabled persons. According to learned Counsel the trade of electronic group 'B' has not been identified by the appropriate Government as a post in which reservation for physically handicapped can be given, and therefore, the petitioner could not be considered under the physically handicapped quota. It has been stated in paragraph 14 of the counter -affidavit that the respondents after receiving a notice issued by the Chief Commissioner (Disabilities) on a complaint filed in respect of violation of the provisions of the Act sent a reply to the same.;