Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 202 (MP)

Anil Kumar Sharma v. State of M. P.

2005-02-09

N.K.MODI

body2005
JUDGMENT N.K. Modi, J. 1. Heard finally. 2. The case of the petitioner is that; he is a handicapped person, as the petitioner is suffering from paralysis. He was appointed as Section Writer against a vacant post as a daily wage employee with effect from 1.9.1984. Petitioner was considered for regular appointment by the District Selection Committee, Ratiam on 25.7.1987 and was found fit for regular appointment and the case of the petitioner was recommended for regular appointment with a condition of passing the typing examination. 3. The contention of learned Counsel for petitioner is that there is a Circular dated 18.3.1975 (Annexure P-6) wherein the Government has clarified that on the post of Lower Division Clerk and Shorthand Steno is concerned, handicapped candidates are exempted from passing the typewriting examination, provided a certificate is being issued by the Civil Surgeon or the Medical Board to the effect that because of deformity in the hand, the candidate is not able to learn the typing. It was further clarified that if the candidate its otherwise eligible, then he is entitled for the appointment on the post of LDC. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of the specific Circular, in the order Annexure P-5, whereby the petitioner has been selected, a condition has been laid down that alter passing the typing examination petitioner will be entitled for appointment. Petitioner further submits, upon submitting the representation vide order Annexure P7, the petitioner was directed to furnish the certificate from Medical Board, which was duly submitted vide Annexure-P8 and after submission of this the case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not got himself registered with the Employment Exchange and after getting himself registered petitioner will be given opportunity of interview, in accordance with the seniority in the registration. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order Annexure P-9 is illegal and deserves to be quashed. 5. In view of the aforesaid Circular issued by the State Government and m view of the fact that the. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order Annexure P-9 is illegal and deserves to be quashed. 5. In view of the aforesaid Circular issued by the State Government and m view of the fact that the. petitioner is appointed, vide Annexure P-2 against a vacant post and is discharging his duties right from 1984, the petitioner is entitled for the post of LDC/Assistant Grade III and the case of the petitioner cannot be rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not passed the typing examination or that the petitioner has not got himself registered with the Employment Exchange. 6. Without passing any order on merits, Annexure-P9 is quashed with a direction that the petitioner should submit a fresh application with respondent No. 2, after getting himself registered with Employment Exchange, Ratlam, within a period of one month. If an application's submitted, since the petitioner is handicapped, the case of the petitioner be considered sympathetically within a period of 2 months from the date of submission of the representation, keeping in view the Circular issued by the Government for a handicapped person. 7. With the aforesaid direction the petition is disposed of, with no order as to costs.