Separate Cut Off Marks Must Be Given For Physically Handicapped Category At Each Stage Of Recruitment: Allahabad High Court

While granting relief to a person with optical atrophy in both eyes, the Allahabad High Court has held that separate cut off marks must be given for the physically handicapped category at each stage to ensure that physically handicapped candidates get adequate representation in service.

Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services, Rekha Sharma vs High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan and another and Saurav Yadav and others vs State of U.P. and others, Justice Abdul Moin held,

“physically handicapped category is to be considered as a separate category and provided with reservations and it is indispensable on the part of the authorities to declare separate cut off marks for physically handicapped category for each stage to ensure that those similarly placed candidates are adequately represented in service fulfilling the very purpose of reservation.”

Petitioner has optical atrophy of both eyes and is 100% permanently physically handicapped person. Pursuant to an advertisement by the respondent, petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor (English). Petitioner secured 127.22 marks in physically handicapped category and 345 rank.

Petitioner pleaded that he was at the 6^th position in the physically handicapped category. Once the top candidate did not join, petitioner moved to the 5^th position making him eligible for appointment. Relying on Section 13 of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980, it was argued that the respondents were obligated to send 25% more names than the vacancies, and in such case the petitioner's name should have been in the list.

Since petitioner was not appointed, he moved a representation which was rejected. Petitioner approached the High Court against rejection of his claim and prayed for a direction to the respondents to appoint him on the post of Assistant Professor (English) in reservation quota of physically handicapped category.

The respondents contended that the petitioner's name was not in the 25% of the list as he had not secured requisite marks and consequently, he was not offered appointment.

Referring to Section 34 of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the Court observed that “every appropriate government shall appoint in every government establishment not less than 4% of total number of vacancies in the cadre strength in each group of posts meant to be filled with persons with benchmark disabilities. The word used by legislature is "shall appoint" meaning thereby that not less than 4% of total number of vacancies in cadre strength would be occupied by persons with benchmark disability by way of appointment.”

The Court observed that the petitioner's disability was not in dispute. It held that separate wait list for physically handicapped category should have been prepared in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services and once the first candidate did not join in the reserved category, other eligible candidates in the same category ought to have been considered.

Noting that there was no dispute that petitioner was next in line after the last selected candidate in the reserved category, the Court held that petitioner ought to have been appointed.

Accordingly, the Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Assistant Professor (English) in physically handicapped category.

Case Title: Prabhat Mishra v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Higher Education Govt. U.P. Lko. And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 4991 of 2023]

Counsel for Petitioner: Rahul Bajaj, assisted by Advocates Taha Bin Tasneem and Harsh Vardhan Kedia

Counsel for Respondent : C.S.C.,Ashwani Kumar Agnihotri

Click Here To Read/Download Order