M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both the writ applications, they have been heard together and are disposed of by this order.
(2.) BY these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in O.A. No. 186 of 2005 and O.A. No. 210 of 2005 whereby direction was issued to the petitioners to allow the respondents to join in Group -D post as per offer of appointment. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: Some posts were advertised for employment in the Railway under handicapped quota vide notification dated 10.2.1999. Pursuant to the aforesaid notification, the private respondents including other handicapped persons applied for Group -D posts with disability between 40% and 70%. The respondents being physically handicapped having 40% visual and hearing disability, claimed to be the persons entitled to get employment as per Disability Act. 1995. However, the petitioner -appellant denied appointment on the ground that the applicants do not come within the purview of handicapped persons as defined under the Act.
(3.) THE respondents' case was that other disabled candidates with 40% disability were provided employment by the Railway authorities, but the employment of the respondents was denied.;