Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 317 (PAT)

Gopal Prasad v. Union Of India

2007-02-12

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10.5.2004 issued by the Deputy General Manager (Administration), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), Patna. By the impugned order the petitioners candidature/selection from the select list of successful candidates has been cancelled. The ground given in the impugned order is that the petitioner was not eligible to be considered for appointment under physically handicapped category since at the initial stage of applying his disability was limited to 15%, whereas a minimum disability of 40% was required for the persons to be eligible to appear in the physically handicapped category. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, who is suffering from Polio gave his declaration while applying for the post of Junior Accounts Officer for the recruitment year 2003. Thereafter an admit card was issued to him, he was allowed to sit for the examination and a merit list was prepared. The petitioner made it to the merit list after having qualified in the examination held by the authorities. The petitioner was directed to produce various certificates or the documents in original for final selection. The list is given out in Annexure-5 annexed to the writ application. In terms of Annexure-6 a letter was also issued to the petitioner dated 16.10.2003 that he has been provisionally selected for the post of Junior Accounts Officer. He was directed to submit his original degree certificate, matriculation certificate medical fitness certificate from a medical board and a security deposit of Rs. 5000/-. 4. The petitioner subsequently was placed before the medical board constituted by the respondents and the medical board opined that the petitioner was suffering from 40% disability. This is dated 8.11.2003. After having completed all the exercise it was on 10th May, 2004 that the respondents discovered that the petitioner was not eligible to apply for the post in question since at the relevant time he was suffering from 15% disability that being the position the respondent authorities in their wisdom decided to cancel the candidature of the petitioner from the list of successful candidates. 5. As already recorded above two things emerge that even though at the initial threshold the petitioner was suffering from 15% disability but at the time of appointment the medical board appointed by the respondents held the disability of the petitioner to be 40%. 5. As already recorded above two things emerge that even though at the initial threshold the petitioner was suffering from 15% disability but at the time of appointment the medical board appointed by the respondents held the disability of the petitioner to be 40%. The other aspect is that there was no suppression or misdeclaration of any kind made by the petitioner while applying for the said post under physically handicapped category. By allowing the petitioner to sit in the examination, the respondents acquiesced. The petitioner has successfully competed in the examination made it to the select list and thereafter he was issued a letter (Annexure-6) by the respondents informing him of provisional selection. It is too late a stage now to throw him out on this technical plea that at the initial stage when he applied he was not eligible. 6. The Government of India by a legislation passed in 1995 known as Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, made it mandatory for various Government organisation to provide fullest participation to people with disabilities. People with disabilities are equal citizens of this country and by virtue of their physical deformity they cannot be denied opportunities to lead a normal respectful life by seeking employment under the Government of India or any of its Organisations. 7. Petitioner is at present certified by a medical board constituted by the respondents to have 40% disability. Since he has the minimum disability now he cannot be denied appointment as an afterthought that the authorities made a mistake by allowing him to appear at the examination at the initial stage. They ought to have barred the petitioner from participating in the examination at the very initial stage. Having failed to act in time it is too belated now to take the plea of ineligibility at this stage when the petitioner has been provisionally selected and letters were issued to him to complete the formalities for final appointment. 8. In the given facts indicated above this Court is of the opinion that the respondent authorities have illegally passed Annexure-1 dated 10th May, 2004 by taking a hyper legal plea. The impugned order is accordingly quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to complete the formalities of appointment of petitioner on priority preferably within two months of the communication/production of a copy of this order. 9. The impugned order is accordingly quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to complete the formalities of appointment of petitioner on priority preferably within two months of the communication/production of a copy of this order. 9. This writ application stands allowed.