- (1.) Heard Mr. S.K. Rungta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners assisted by Mr. Sudhir Kumar Mishra and Smt. Sangeeta Chandra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State as well as Mr. Rajneesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of U.P. Public Service Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioners is a blind person pursuing the present controversy for his colleagues who have not been given appointment by the State Government in pursuance to statutory mandate provided by the "Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995" (in short, 1995 Act). The 1995 Act came into force on 7.2.1996. According to the petitioners' counsel, inspite of repeated orders passed by this Court, the Government has been failed to comply with statutory mandate to identify and fill up 1% vacancies by blind persons. He further submits that admittedly, the State Government has not filled up the vacancies ignoring the statutory mandate and the judgment of Hon'ble supreme Court decided on 7.7.2010 in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 14889 of 2009 Government of India v. Ravi Prakash Gupta and another.
(2.) While assailing the conduct of the State Government, it is vehemently argued by the petitioners' counsel that the State of U.P. has adopted dilatory tactics by not complying with statutory mandate provided under 1995 Act.
(3.) On the other hand, Smt. Sangeeta Chandra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that it is not adversarial of litigation and the Government is very well trying to identify and fill up the quota of blind persons. At no stage, the Government is trying to curtail the rights of blind persons.;