- (1.)The Jammu and Kashmir Service Selection Board (for short SSB) issued advertisement notice No. 01/08 dated 22nd April, 2008, whereunder besides others posts of teachers were also notified. The selection/appointments were to be made in all Districts of State of J&K. In respect of post(s) of teachers in every District, it was also provided that partially impaired and one leg handicapped would be eligible to seek consideration for being selected/appointed on the post of teacher. Besides the appellant, one Sarfaraz Maqbool Bhat, sought consideration for being selected/appointed on the post of teacher in District cadre Baramulla, as handi capped person(s). The selection list was issued by the SSB. The appellant did not figure in the said list, which constrained her to challenge the same in SWP No. 182/09. Sarfaraz Maqool Bhat also filed SWP No. 1006/09. The appellant's disability was "locomotor upper limb" whereas, Sarfaraz Maqool Bhat was suffering from "locomotor disability in right leg". The appellant had impleaded one Shabir Ahmad Dar as respondent in the writ petition and sought quashment of selection list to his extent. Sarfaraz Maqool Bhat was impleaded as party respondent in SWP No. 182/09.
(2.)The claim of the appellant in the writ petition was that she having secured 43.27 marks as compared to respondent No. 5 (Shabir Ahmad), who had only secured 33.67 marks, she should have been selected/appointed as a handicapped person in view of her superior merit. The official respondents in their reply affidavit filed before the writ court have taken a definite stand that the appellant was not eligible in terms of the advertisement notice as also government order No. 62-SW 1001 dated 13th March 2001 and her application form was entertained by mistake. It was also stated that the respondent Shabir Ahmad Dar, though, was eligible for being considered for being selected/appointed on the post of teacher as handi capped person but since he had secured only 33.67 marks he could not be recom mended for being appointed on the post of teacher as another physically handicapped person had secured 35.60 points. Ld single judge considered and disposed of the writ petition of the appellant as also Sarfaraz Maqool Bhat, by its order/judgment dated 10th of June 2011. The writ petition of the appellant was dismissed and that of Sarfarqz Maqool Bhat was allowed. In the writ petition of Sarfaraz Maqool Bhat, respondents were directed to proceed in the matter. Sarfaraz Maqool Bhat, petitioner, in SWP No. 1006/09 because of his merit was selected for being appointed on the post of teacher as a handicapped person but his appoint ment could not mature in view of the interim direction passed by the Writ Court in SWP No. 182/09.
(3.)Mr. M.A. Qayoom Id counsel, for appellant submitted that the impugned judgment is unsustainable in law, in as much as, the appellant was subjected to selection process and she secured 43.27 points and the respondents were, thus, under legal obligation to recommend her for being appointed on the post of teacher in District cadre Baramulla. Ld counsel also submitted that in terms of the Govern ment order No. 62-SW 2001 dated 13th March 2001, no vacancy could be filled up from handicapped person(s) against the post(s) of teachers which carried pay scale of Rs. 3050-4910; 4500-7000 and 5000-8000. Ld counsel referred to section 21 and 22 of the J&K Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protections of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1998 (for short Act of 1998) and submitted that the respon dents are under statutory obligation to appoint in every establishment persons or class of persons with disabilities, of which 1% each has to be reserved for persons suffering from;
i) blindness or low vision;

ii) hearing impairment;

iii) locomotor disability or cerebral Palsy in the post(s) identified for each disabilities.

Ld counsel submitted that since the appellant admittedly was suffering from disability of "locomotor upper limb" was, thus, to be appointed in view of the merit secured by her. Ld counsel further submitted that none of the parties had set up the case in pleadings that the selection/appointment in respect of the handicapped person(s) is to be made in accordance with the Government order No. 62-SW of 2001 dated 13th March 2001. Ld counsel submitted that the Id single judge has, thus, wrongly relied on the said Government order and resultantly the impugned judgment is rendered illegal. Ld counsel also submitted that Section 22(iii), does, not exclude the disability from which the appellant is suffering. Ld counsel while placing whole-hag reliance on the said clause of Section 22 of the Act of 1998 submitted that the appellant is eligible for seeking consideration for being selected/appointed on the post of teacher as a handicapped person and in view of the superior merit secured in the selection process, she deserves to be appointed on the post of teacher. Ld counsel also referred to Division Bench judgment of this court Jyotsna Mengi v. ChairmanJ&K PSC/and Other, 2009 2 JKJ 48 prayed for allowing of the Letter's Patent Appeal.