- (1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. Heard Sri Manish Goyal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. S. Kushwaha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents and Sri P. K. Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for National Federation of Blinds respondent No. 13.
(2.) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the merit list filed as Annexure 1-Ato 1-K issued by the Principals of different DIETs insofar as they deal with the category of handicapped persons. A writ of mandamus has also been sought for commanding the respondents to treat the reservation of handicapped persons as 3% in each and every class uniformly. A further mandamus has also been sought for commanding the respondents No. 2 to 12 to place handicapped persons in General Category where the marks fall within the cut-off marks of General Category candidate. The brief facts of the case as emerged from the pleading of the parties are; that all the petitioners are physically handicapped persons who have applied for getting admission in Special B. T. C. Training Programme 2007. In pursuance of the Government Orders dated 10. 7. 2007 and 13. 7. 2007 advertisements were is sued by Principals of different DIETs inviting applications for Special B. T. C. Training Programme 2007 from those candidates who had passed B. Ed: Clause 8 of the advertisement provides that there shall be a reservation for physically handicapped persons according to concerned Act and Government Orders. It further contemplates that they will be adjusted in their original category i. e. General Category. Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. All the petitioners claim to have passed B. Ed. The petitioners claim to be suffering from different locomotor disabilities. The petitioners' case is that visual handicapped and audio handicapped are not eligible for Special B. T. C. Training Programme 2007. Petitioners' case further is that different merit lists have been issued for different category of handicaps from several DIETs. Petitioners' case is further that in some districts merit index has been issued with regard to, only one category i. e. physically handicapped, whereas in several other districts separate merit list has been issued for different categories i. e. visual handicapped, audio handicapped and candidates suffering from locomotors disability. The petitioners' case further is that in several districts the handicapped candidates have highermerit as compared to the General Category candidates but the handicapped candidates are not being treated to be General Category candidates to which they are entitled. The candidates who are visual and audio handicapped are not eligible for teaching at the primary level. The' petitioners' case further is that for locomotor candidates only 1 % seats are being provided whereas the candidates of two other categories i. e. audio handicapped and visual handicapped being not eligible, the candidates suffering from locomotory disability are entitled to be given 3% reservation. The petitioners have challenged the merit index issued from different DIETs. An application, supported by an affidavit has been filed by National Federation of Blinds UP. Branch seeking impleadment in the writ petition in opposition to the writ petition which was allowed vide order of this Court dated 29. 11. 2007.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners in support of the writ petition submitted that persons who are visually handicapped or an audio handicapped are not eligible to-teach primary classes hence, they are also not eligible to be admitted in Special B. T. C. Training Programme 2007. LEARNED Counsel submits that State of U. P. has identified the post of Teachers which are to be offered to the physically handicapped candidates vide Government Order dated 7. 5. 1999, in which the primary teachers are mentioned at serial Nos. 26 and 27, which posts have been categorized for the candidates suffering from locomotor disability and the candidates suffering from audio and visual disabilities have not been identified as fit for primary school teacher. LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that other two categories not being eligible the 3% vacancies which are reserved for physically handicapped candidates should be filled up by the candidates suffering from locomotor disability. LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submits that no uniform policy has been adopted by the Principal of DIETs as from several DIETs the merit index of all the three categories have been separately issued and from certain DIETs a common merit index for physically handicapped candidates have been issued. LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners contends that even though in certain DIETs, the merit index of physically handicapped candidates are more than the General Category candidates but they are not being treated as General Category candidates so the benefit of reservation for specific handicapped persons may fall on next deserving candidate. Sri K. S. Kushwaha, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the merit lists issued by different DIETs. Learned Standing Counsel submits that reservation has been provided in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as U. P. Act No. 4 of 1993 ). He also referred a Central Act namely; The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. A supplementary counter affidavit has also been filed by learned Standing Counsel in pursuance of direction of this Court to explain the stand of the State Government on various issues raised in the writ petition. Learned Standing Counsel has also referred to a Committee constituted by the State by Government Order dated 22. 1. 2007 in pursuance of the certain directions issued by the Lucknow Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 4592 (MB) of 2306 filed by National Federation of Binds in which writ petition, the petitioners had claimed appointment on group 'c' and 'd' posts. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the report of the said committee has not yet been received and appointment shall be given on different posts in accordance with the recommendation of the report of the said Committee. It has been further stated by learned Standing Counsel that selection is for Special B. T. C. Training Course and is not for any appointment with regard to the candidates suffering from visual and audio handicapped. It has been stated in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the supplementary counter affidavit that those category of candidates would be trained in selected DIETs by providing special training through special equipments and appropriate necessary arrangements will be made for their training.;