Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 493 (JHR)

Nazni Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2017-03-08

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2017
ORDER : 1. The petitioner, a candidate under MBC category as well as OH category for appointment on the post of Urdu Assistant Teacher in the New Upgraded Secondary School in the State of Jharkhand, now seeks a direction for her appointment under VH category. 2. In law, a candidate is bound by his/her declaration in the application. Once the petitioner opted for appointment under OH category, now on a plea that vacancies under VH category are still vacant, cannot seek a direction for consideration of her case in a different category, that is, VH category. 3. Mr. Bhanu Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner extensively referring to provisions under The Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participations) Act, 1995 and a judgment of the Supreme Court in "Union of India & Anr. Vs. National Federation of the Blind & Ors." reported in (2013) 10 SCC 772 [: 2013(4) JLJR (SC)310] contends that the mandate under the Disability Act, being a beneficial legislation, must be given effect to in its true letter and spirit. The petitioner who suffers disability in both the categories, VH as well as OH, cannot be denied appointment on recalculation of the vacancies, which, in fact, the respondents have revised many times. 4. Pursuant to Advertisement No.93 of 2011, the petitioner submitted her application for appointment as Assistant Teacher in Urdu. Total number of vacancies was 134. This is not in dispute that she is a candidate under MBC category and she has submitted her application under OH category. When several writ petitions were preferred [W.P.(S) No.1266 of 2015 and batch cases] in this Court raising a grievance that the vacancies in terms of Section 33 of the Disability Act, 1995 has not been calculated taking into account the total number of vacancies, a learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 13.08.2015 directed the respondents to reassess the total number of vacancies under the Disability Act. In the aforesaid fact, the plea taken by the petitioner that after the number of vacancies has been recalculated by the respondents, which would amount to issuing a fresh advertisement, the petitioner should have been put to notice turns out to be misconceived. The petitioner has herself preferred W.P.(S) No.1266 of 2015 and now she cannot feign ignorance of the order passed by this Court. The petitioner has herself preferred W.P.(S) No.1266 of 2015 and now she cannot feign ignorance of the order passed by this Court. Recalculation of the vacancies has been done in compliance of order passed by the writ Court. The respondents have pleaded in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner suffers from 70% disability under OH category, in which category the cutoff marks was 200 whereas, the petitioner has secured only 181 marks. Obviously, the petitioner could not have been selected as a candidate under MBC (OH) category. Now, in view of the application submitted by the petitioner, if by an order of the Court her category is changed to VH, it would amount to changing the preference given by her. A candidate must be bound by the declarations and the preference disclosed in the application. 5. Finding no merit in the writ petition, it is dismissed.