SUDHIR AGARWAL,J.SHAMSHER BAHADUR SINGH,J. - (1.) As requested and agreed by learned counsel for the parties, we proceed to hear and decide this matter finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court.
(2.) Heard Smt. Archana Singh, Advocate, for petitioners, Sri M.F. Ansari, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Ayub Khan, Advocate, for respondent 2 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent 3. None appeared on behalf of respondent 1 despite the case having been called in revised and despite service of notice as per office report dated 06.10.2015 which shows that notice was sent but has not been received unserved and acknowledgment has also not been received. Hence, service is deemed sufficient.
(3.) Respondent 1 in purported compliance of Section 50 read with 59 of Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1995") has passed an order dated 22.10.2003 on a complaint received from respondent 2 observing that declaring a candidate with Ph.D. and less than 55 per cent marks in post -graduation ineligible for post of Lecturer is contrary to practice being followed by University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as "UGC"), though Rules framed by University and State so provide, hence State is advised to re -consider framing of rules in consultation with UGC. Further, in the meantime a direction has been issued to petitioner to consider candidature of complainant provisionally for the post of Lecturer pursuant to Advertisement No. 37 published in Employment News of 26th July -1st August' 2003 and keep a post of Lecturer unfilled until the case is decided. It has further directed State Government as well as petitioner to ensure that minimum 3 per cent vacancies are reserved for persons with disabilities in accordance with Section 33 of Act, 1995.;