JUDGMENT : L.S. JAMIR, J. 1. The respondents/Oil India Limited issued a Notification dated 09-03-2012 for Special Recruitment Drive to wipe out the backlog vacancies of persons with disabilities (PWDS) and invited applications from eligible candidates (domicile of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh) for recruitment to various posts which included 8 posts of Junior Assistant-1 (Clerk-cum-Computer Operator) Grade-V. Out of the 8 posts, 3 posts were reserved for hearing impairment, 2 posts for visually impaired and 3 posts for Orthopedically challenged. The petitioner being eligible, applied for the post of Junior Assistant-1 (Clerk-cum-Computer Operator) Grade-V reserved for persons with hearing impairment. The application was accepted and the petitioner was issued a call letter dated 26-11-2012 for screening (written) test for the post of Junior Assistant-1 (Clerk-cum-Computer Operator) Grade-V to be held on 30-12-2012. The petitioner was successful in the screening (written) Test and accordingly, a call letter dated 09-07-2013 was served upon him for appearing in the Computer Operation Skill Test (Stage-II) to be held on 12-08-2013. Thereafter, the result of the Computer Operator Skill Test/Shorthand and Computer Typing Test results were declared wherein, the Roll Number of the petitioner also appeared. Thereafter, the petitioner, by call letter dated 03-02-2014 was asked to appear for the interview/vivavoce to be held on 06-03-2014 at Geophysics Department, Inside Industrial Area, Oil India Limited, Duliajan. The petitioner appeared in the said interview and thereafter, the respondents declared the final selection test result on 20-05-2014 wherein, the petitioner was not selected. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is praying for a direction for re-conducting the interview/viva-voce test on the ground that when the interview was conducted , the same was held inside a big hall which was located near the Power House of the Industrial Area, Oil India Limited, Duliajan and as the petitioner being a hearing impaired person having disability of 90% was unable to clearly understand the questions that were put to him and that none of the examiners adopted the sign language to help the petitioner to properly understand the questions that were put to him. 2. Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned senior counsel/Standing Counsel, Oil India Limited appearing for the respondents. 3. Mr. 2. Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned senior counsel/Standing Counsel, Oil India Limited appearing for the respondents. 3. Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that after clearing the screening (written) test and Computer Operation Skill Test, the petitioner was invited to appear for the interview/viva-voce which was schedule to be held on 06-03-2014. He submits that the date of interview/viva-voce was subsequently rescheduled to 20-03-2014 and 21-03-2014. On the date of interview, it is submitted, that the interview/viva-voce was held in a big hall which was located near the Power House of the Industrial Area, Oil India Limited, Duliajan and though the petitioner was wearing hearing aid, he could not clearly understand the questions that were put to him by the examiners. Further, none of the examiners had the expertise to conduct interview of persons with hearing impairment inasmuch as, none of the examiners adopted the sign language to enable the petitioner to properly understand the questions that were being put to him. As a result, the petitioner could not qualify in the viva-voce test. It is also submitted that the father of the petitioner preferred an application under R.T.I Act, 2005 seeking information, amongst others, as to how many candidates were selected in the category of hearing impairment and the marks that were obtained by the petitioner in the written test and the computer competency test. In response, by letter dated 03-07-2014, the father of the petitioner was informed that no candidates were selected under the category of hearing impairment and in the annexure enclosed to the reply, the petitioner is found to have obtained highest marks than the other candidates. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also submits that on 15-06-2014, the petitioner had also made an application requesting for sympathetic consideration for employment before the respondent No.3/the Director (H.R), Oil India Limited, Oil House, Plot No.-19 Sector 16-A on the ground that hearing impaired persons cannot be made to face the interview/viva-voce for selection for appointment to the post reserved for such category inasmuch as, the same is not consistent with the definition of hearing impairment and therefore, as the interview/viva-voce was conducted near the Power House of Oil India Limited, he could not hear the questions that were put to him. However, such application of the petitioner has also not been considered by the respondent No.3. He submits that the very factum of holding the oral interview with hearing impairment amounts to discriminatory treatment of persons with hearing impairment and that even assuming but not admitting that the respondent authorities could hold interview/viva-voce, the same should have been done in the presence of professionals assigned in interpretation who would have enabled the petitioner and other similarly situated persons to properly understand the questions that were being put to them. However, in the instant case, no interpreter was utilized by the interview board and that the members were themselves not capable to hold an interview inasmuch as, they had no knowledge on such sign language. Apart from the disabilities of the board members, the interview was also held near the Power House of the Oil India Limited and therefore, the petitioner and other similarly situated candidates could not hear the questions put to them despite wearing hearing aids. Therefore, taking into consideration the aims and objectives of enacting the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ( the Act of 1995 in short), the respondents be directed to appoint the petitioner to one of the post of Junior Assistant-1 (Clerk-cum-Computer Operator) Grade-V reserved for persons with hearing impairment. It is also submitted that during the pendency of this writ petition, the respondents had again issued a notification for special recruitment drive for persons with disabilities (PWDS) for the post of Junior Assistant-1 (Clerk-cum-Computer Operator), "Trainee" Grade-V on 04-09-2015 in the Assam Tribune Newspaper advertising 8 posts out of which 5 posts have been earmarked for hearing impaired candidates. He submits that in the advertisement dated 04-09-2015, the word "Trainee" has been added but the posts are the same against which the petitioner had earlier applied and had secured highest marks. He, therefore, submits that the respondents may be debarred from filling up 3 posts of Junior Assistant-1 (Clerk-cum-Computer Operator), "Trainee" Grade-V in terms of the advertisement dated 04-09- 2015 and that a direction be also issued to appoint the petitioner to one of the posts. 5. Mr. He, therefore, submits that the respondents may be debarred from filling up 3 posts of Junior Assistant-1 (Clerk-cum-Computer Operator), "Trainee" Grade-V in terms of the advertisement dated 04-09- 2015 and that a direction be also issued to appoint the petitioner to one of the posts. 5. Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that against the 3 posts of Junior Assistant-1 (Clerk-cum-Computer Operator) Grade-V reserved for hearing impaired candidates, a total of 55 candidates applied for the same including the petitioner. Thereafter, a screening test/written test was held on 30-12-2012 wherein, a total of 40 numbers of candidates appeared. However, only 5 numbers of candidates were successful in the screening test/written test including the petitioner and the said 5 candidates had appeared in the next stage of examination i.e Trade Test. In the Trade Test, only 3 candidates including the petitioner could qualify. However, none of them were successful in the viva-voce test. It is also submitted that the selection procedure comprised of Screening Test, Computer Test and Interview and the candidates were required to get 50% or above marks to qualify in each stage of examination. However, the petitioner failed in the viva-voce test and therefore, he could not be selected. Learned senior counsel further submits that all the candidates for the different tests including the hearing impaired candidates were interviewed on the same day and same place. However, none of the candidates with hearing impairment including the petitioner had intimated the respondents with regard to the difficulties faced by them while facing the interview board without a sign language interpreter. He also submits that the petitioner had appeared in all stages of examination without an iota of complaint and it is only when he did not qualify in the viva-voce test that the petitioner raised objection about the viva-voce examination. Learned senior counsel further denies the allegations made by the petitioner that the interview was held in a big hall which was located near the Power House and that there is no mandatory requirements to keep a member having expertise/experience in sign language in the board. Learned senior counsel further denies the allegations made by the petitioner that the interview was held in a big hall which was located near the Power House and that there is no mandatory requirements to keep a member having expertise/experience in sign language in the board. Further, the petitioner was permitted to wear hearing aid and when there was no objection from the petitioner with regard to understanding the questions, there was no reasons for the members of the board to assume that the petitioner had any difficulty in understanding the questions. Learned senior counsel also submits that the petitioner having been unsuccessful in the selection process is invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list notified by the respondents. This would clearly disentitle the petitioner from questioning the selection process more particularly, the process of interview/vivavoce and therefore, the present writ petition should be dismissed. 6. I have considered the submissions forwarded by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The submissions of the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents denying allegations of the petitioner that the interview/viva-voce was held in a big hall near the Power House of Oil India Limited has been taken into consideration. The allegations and denials of the parties with regard to conducting of interview/vivavoce in a big hall near the Power House of Oil India Limited cannot be gone into by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. At the same time, this Court while taking into consideration the aims and object of enacting the Act of 1995 has to consider whether the interview/viva-voce was conducted in consonance with the aims and object of the Act of 1995 to give effect to the proclamation on the full participation and equality of the people with disabilities has been fulfilled. 8. A perusal of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents would indicate an admission that the interview/board consisted of members who were not well versed with the sign language. The counter-affidavit also clearly indicates that the services of a sign language interpreter was not utilized. 8. A perusal of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents would indicate an admission that the interview/board consisted of members who were not well versed with the sign language. The counter-affidavit also clearly indicates that the services of a sign language interpreter was not utilized. Therefore, irrespective of whether the interview was held in a big hall near the Power House of the Oil India Limited or not, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner who is having 90% disabilities with hearing impairment, has been prejudiced at the time of interview/viva-voce. Considering the aims and objects of the Act of 1995, it was incumbent on the part of the respondents to have utilized the assistance of a sign language interpreter while conducting the interview/viva-voce. In that view of the matter, I see force in the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner could not understand properly the question put to him in the absence of a sign language interpreter. In the case of Rajeev Kumar Gupta and Others vs- Union of India and Others, (2016) 13 SCC 153 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed as under:- "22. The 1995 Act was enacted to fulfill India's obligations under the "Proclamation on the Full Participation and Equality of the People with Disabilities in the Asia and Pacific Region". The objective behind the 1995 Act is to integrate PWD into the society and to ensure their economic progress. The intent is to turn PWD into "agents of their destiny" PWD are not and cannot be equated with backward classes contemplated under Article 16 (4). May be, certain factors are common to both backward classes and PWD such as social attitudes and historical neglect, etc. 23. It is disheartening to note that (admittedly) low number of PWD (much below three percent) are in government employment long years after the 1995 Act. Barriers to their entry must, therefore, be scrutinized by rigorous standards within the legal framework of the 1995 Act." 9. In the facts and circumstances of what has been discussed herein above, the respondents are directed to re-conduct the interview/viva-voce pursuant to the vacancy Notification dated 09-03-2012 by inviting the petitioner as well as the other candidates who had earlier qualified for the interview/viva-voce test. Thereafter, the 3 posts of Junior Assistant-1 (Clerk-cum-Computer Operator) Grade-V be filled up in accordance with law. Thereafter, the 3 posts of Junior Assistant-1 (Clerk-cum-Computer Operator) Grade-V be filled up in accordance with law. Let such exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order by the respondents. 10. Accordingly, the advertisement dated 09-07-2013 in respect of the post of Junior Assistant-1 (Clerk-cum-Computer Operator) "Trainee" Grade-V, wherein 5 posts of Junior Assistant-1 (Clerk-cum-Computer Operator) "Trainee" Grade-V is reserved for hearing impaired candidates shall be proceeded with, only after the process as directed by this Court is completed with regard to the re-conduct of interview/vivavoce test in terms of the vacancy Notification dated 09-03-2012. 11. Writ petition is allowed. 12. No costs.