- (1.) Syed Sajid Raza is before this Court for a direction to the respondents to select and appoint him on the post of Labour Enforcement Officer; quash the selection of one of the respondent nos.3 to 5 on the post of Labour Enforcement Officer and further direction to the respondents to select and appoint 21 physically handicapped candidates in the Combined Lower Subordinate Examination 2009.
(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the writ petition are that the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (in short "the Commission") had issued an advertisement for appointment on various posts through Combined Lower Subordinate Services Examination, 2009. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner had applied under the General Category -P.H. (PBD- Partially Blind), as such the petitioner was not barred from entering into examination and he was entitled for reservation under handicapped category. The petitioner had cleared the preliminary and mains examination and had been called for interview, the same llllwas conducted on 25.06.2014. As per the information supplied by the Commission vide letter dated 22nd April, 2013, annexed as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition, it has also been averred that in the said examination out of 738 posts, 21 posts were reserved for physically handicapped candidates. Along with the said information complete chart has been annexed giving details regarding the reservation of physically handicapped candidates in each category and sub-category. For example five posts of Supply Inspectors were reserved for physically handicapped candidates in which two were reserved for impaired vision, two for impaired hearing and one for locomotor disability and cerebral palsy (Artho). Similarly for other posts also reservations have been quantified for each category.
(3.) In this background, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the final result of the aforesaid examination was declared by the Commission on 9th November, 2014 in which only 14 candidates of physically handicapped category were selected while as per the information there were 21 posts reserved for physically handicapped candidates. He further makes submission that as per the information out of 14 selected candidates under physically handicapped category, only four candidates got selected for PH-1 (impaired vision) category. It is also submitted that last selected candidate of physically handicapped category has obtained 210.40 marks, whereas the petitioner had obtained 239.7 marks, which is much higher to the last selected candidates under the physically handicapped category, as such he has every right to be given appointment under physically handicapped category and this Court should come to rescue and reprieve of the petitioner.;