- (1.) Heard Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Amit Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no.6 and learned Standing Counsel for respondents No.1,2 and 3.
(2.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has come to this Court raising a grievance that his claim for appointment is not being considered under the physically handicapped quota.
(3.) The petitioner had applied for appointment of Assistant Teacher in primary school maintained by the Basic Education Board. The State Government had advertised 72,000 and odd vacancies to be filled pursuant to the advertisement issued in 2011. It is to be noted that at the time of tendering the application, the petitioner did not apply under physically handicapped category. It is submitted that although the petitioner was physically handicapped to the extent of 85% impairment in hearing in the year 2009 but since that certificate was misplaced, therefore, the petitioner did not apply under the aforesaid category of physically handicapped. Subsequently, it appears that Supreme Court in a bunch of cases, one such case being Civil Appeal No.4347-4375 of 2014 it was held as under: "We will be failing in our duty if we do not take note of the submission whch has been advanced before us that though certain posts are reserved in the category of horizontal quota, no steps have been taken to fill up the said. Regard being had to provisions contained in the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Right and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and the Rules in vogue in the State of Uttar Pradesh, we direct that the posts in those categories shall be filled up as per the Rules relating to relaxation in respect of the said category. That apart, if any quota and relaxation are available for any other horizontal category, that may also be applied.";