- (1.)Appellant a physically challenged person suffering from deafness about 60% of his left ear sought consideration for being selected/appointed on the post of Physical Education Teacher when he responded to the advertisement notice No. 03/06 dated 28th Dec. 2006, in District cadre Anantnag, as also advertisement notice No. 06/2008 dated 28th May 2008, in district cadre Kulgam. By the time the second notification was issued, District Kulgam was carved out of District Anantnag. Being unsuccessful in the selection process, appellant filed writ petition, wherein he prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the process of selection as also the selection list forwarded by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1. It was also prayed that respondent No. 1 and respondent No.2 be commanded to select/appoint the petitioner on the post of Physical Education Teacher under handicapped category for a post notified vide advertisement notice No. 03/06 and notification No. 06/08.
(2.)The ld writ court considered the writ petition on 29th April 2010 and while issuing notice, directed respondents to kept one post vacant. Respondent No.2 (J&K Service Selection Board) filed reply affidavit/objections, in which, it was stated that the appellant failed to reach cut off point in Open Merit Category as he secured only 28.48 points, whereas the last cut off point was 41.43 points.
(3.)The ld. writ court dismissed the writ petition vide its order/judgment dated 14th March 2012. It is this judgment/order, which is called in question in this Latter" s Patent Appeal( LPA). When the LPA was first considered by the court it was provided that on post of Physical Education Teacher be kept reserved. The principal ground of challenge as projected by the ld counsel for the appellant is that the respondent No.2 has not considered the claim of the appellant for being selected/appointed on the post of Physical Education Teacher under handicapped category and the ld writ court while observing that the appellant applied under Open Merit Category and not "physically handicapped category" illegally dismissed the writ petition. Ld counsel submitted that the ld writ court has failed to appreciate the legal position governing the case. Ld counsel submitted that 3% post(s) have been reserved for physically handicapped persons and the appellant who sought consideration as a physically handicapped person deserved to be selected/appointed on the post of Physical Education Teacher. Ld counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 submitted that in the application form the appellant specifically sought consideration as an Open Merit Category candidate and because of his merit he secured in the selection process he could not be selected/appointed on the post of Physical Education Teacher. Ld counsel produced record as also the original (OMR) application form of the appellant and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.