Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 248 (JK)

Sunil Kumar Raina v. State of J&K

2016-05-04

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR

body2016
JUDGMENT : DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, J. 1. The petitioner claims to be belonging to a handicapped category and challenges the notification issued by the Public Service Commission dated 26.4.2011 by which the respondents have declared the result of the Assistant Director Statistical-cum-Evaluation Competent Examination held by the Commission in the month of February, 2011 inasmuch as they had not earmarked any vacancies in terms of their obligation as prescribed in the Jammu and Kashmir Persons with disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1998 (for short, Disabilities Act of 1998). 2. It is stated that the petitioner had appeared in the written examination but was not called for interview and it was only pursuant to an interim order passed by this court dated 23.5.2011 that the petitioner was permitted to be interviewed for the said post and in addition to this, one post was also ordered to be reserved from the open merit category. 3. Response has been filed by the Public Service Commission wherein it is stated that a large number of candidates had appeared in the written examination out of which only 292 candidates were declared as having qualified in the said examination. The last candidate in the general category had secured 290 marks in the written examination as against 274, which has been secured by the petitioner. On account of the low merit of the petitioner in the written examination, he was not eligible to be called for interview. It is further stated that the petitioner was permitted to sit in the interview only pursuant to interim directions passed by this court. 4. It is not denied that the reservation provided under the Disabilities Act of 1998 is only horizontal reservation. The petitioner ought to have obtained the minimum qualifying marks prescribed for the written examination, which the petitioner, however, failed to acquire. Although he was permitted to sit in the interview pursuant to court orders, however, that by itself would not create any better right in his favour. 5. The obligation of the respondents-State to identify the posts in all establishments, which can be reserved for persons with disabilities is the other issue raised in the present petition. Although he was permitted to sit in the interview pursuant to court orders, however, that by itself would not create any better right in his favour. 5. The obligation of the respondents-State to identify the posts in all establishments, which can be reserved for persons with disabilities is the other issue raised in the present petition. However, I feel that it may not be necessary to deal with the same inasmuch as this aspect of the matter has already been covered by a Division Bench of this court in Anjeel Kumar and Others vs. State of J&K and Others, 2015 (2) JKJ 785 [HC] wherein the court has recognised the obligation of the State to do the needful. 6. Had it been a case where the petitioner had qualified the written examination, there would have been no difficulty to issue directions to the respondents with a view to ensure that the provisions of the Disabilities Act of 1998 are applied in its letter and spirit for the purposes of granting benefit to the petitioner. However, since it is clear that the petitioner had failed to obtain minimum marks prescribed for appearing in the interview, it is no longer open to the petitioner to claim right of consideration in the said category. 7. Be that as it may, the petition is found to be without merit and is accordingly dismissed along with connected applications, if any.