Implementing Reservation

Sayed Dasthagiri Pasha vs. Osmania University, rep. by its Registrar

Filed Under: Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995
Appellant: Sayed Dasthagiri Pasha
Respondent: Osmania University, rep. by its Registrar
Citation: 2005(3) ALT 448
Court: In the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad
Judge: B. Prakash Rao

This petition was filed by Sayed Dasthagiri Pasha seeking orders for implementation of reservation for the Physically Handicapped Candidates for posts of Lecturers, Readers and Professors in government education institutions.

Facts

Sayed had been working as Lecturer at Hanumakonda, Warangal District. According to him, the Osmania University had issued three notifications for promotion as Reader in Economics on three different occasions, which were all cancelled. Ultimately, a fresh notification was issued on the basis of which Sayed applied for promotion in the handicapped quota as he suffered from polio.

His grievance was that despite appearing for the interview and being fully qualified and therefore, entitled to promotion as Reader in Economics, he was not selected. According to him, reservation had not been extended to the physically handicapped candidates as provided for under the Persons with Disabilities Act.

Aggrieved, Sayed filed a Writ Petition praying for orders for implementation of reservation for the physically handicapped candidates for the posts of lecturers, readers and professors in government education institutions.

Observation of the court

After going through the case the court observed that this petition has been pending for too long and in the mean time Sayed had retired from his service, therefore no relief could be granted to him. Accordingly, the Writ Petition was dismissed.

Top

State of Rajasthan and Anr vs. Shiv Kumar Singh

Filed Under: Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Employment of Physically Handicapped Rules
Employment of the persons with Disabilities Rules
Appellant: Shiv Kumar Singh
Respondent: State of Rajasthan and Anr
Citation: Civil Special Appeal No.225 of 1996 decided on 14.08.2001(unreported)
Court: In the High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench)
Judges: Shiv Kumar Sharma and Khem Chand Sharma

This Writ Petition was filed by two physically handicapped persons, who were aggrieved by the amendment in Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Employment of Physically Handicapped Rules, 1976, whereby physically handicapped persons were deprived of the right of appointment in the State Services.

Facts

Radhey Shyam Maheshwari and Shiv Kumar Singh, who were physically handicapped persons, sought appointment for the post of lecturer in pursuance to the advertisement published by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in the year 1985.

They were denied employment due to the amendment made to rule 3 of the Rajasthan  Employment  of Physically Handicapped Rules in 1981 whereby the physically handicapped persons  were deprived the right to employment in State Services.

Therefore, they filed a write petition challenging the same. Though the Court held the Rule 3 of the 1976 Rules was discriminatory and unfair and the State Government was directed to constitute a committee to find out the basis for giving reservation to the handicapped persons, they were not found entitled to any relief after a lapse of about nine years. Therefore, Shiv kumar and Radhey Shyam filed appeals.

When the appeals were pending, the Governor of Rajasthan, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, enacted “Rajasthan Employment of the Person with Disabilities Rules 2000” to regulate the recruitment of persons with disabilities.

As per Rule 3 of the New Rules, the physically handicapped persons had the right of appointment in the State Services also.

Observation of the court

The first question that was addressed by the Court was as to what is the best relief available to them after the lapse of nine years? The Court was of the opinion that the relief sought by Radhey and Shiv Kumar could not have been denied to them merely on the ground that their Writ Petitions were pending for a period of more then eight years.

It was stated that where a case stands over for a long period, the party ought not to be prejudiced by that delay. It was further held that when the new Rules had been enacted and the physically handicapped persons were entitled to be appointed as lecturer in the Rajasthan Education (College) Service, the State Government was directed to consider their cases for appointment to the post of Lecturer against the quota reserved for physically handicapped persons within a period of one month.

The appointment was to be made effective from the date of publication of the New Rules in Rajasthan Gazette i.e. from Sept 9, 2000. The State of Rajasthan was directed pay a cost of Rs. 10,000 (ten thousand) to each of them.

The appeal was disposed off.

Top