HARSHVARDHAN KURIL Vs. STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
LAWS(MPH)-2018-4-191
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on April 17,2018

Harshvardhan Kuril Appellant
VERSUS
State of M.P. and Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

VANDANA KASREKAR,J. - (1.)The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by his non selection in the result declared on 31.03.2017.
(2.)The petitioner is a Commerce Graduate belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, he is 40% physically handicapped. The Respondent/Public Commission published an advertisement dated 05.12.2016 by which the applications have been invited for appointment on various posts including the Nayab Tehsildar for which the petitioner has applied. In the said advertisement no vacancy was reserved for physically handicapped persons. A corrigendum was issued on 11.01.2017 by which certain posts were added. Thereafter again a corrigendum was issued on 24.03.2017 in which 5 posts each of Nayab Tehsidar were shown to be reserved for various kinds of physically handicapped persons. In the advertisement dated 11.01.2017 no post was shown to be reserved for any kind of handicapped persons. The petitioner, therefore, submitted his application form and mentioned only Scheduled Caste category. As there was no provision for reservation for physically handicapped persons therefore, the petitioner has mentioned "No" in column of physically handicapped persons. On 24.03.2017, when the petitioner came to know about the same, he immediately wrote a letter to the P.S.C. and requested respondent no.2 to extend him the benefit or in alternate if there is any short coming then he may be apprised so that he can get the benefit of the physically handicapped quota. From the OMR Sheet, it revealed that the petitioner has got 114 marks out of 198 because one question was found to be defective. From Online result, the petitioner has came to know that the persons who have been selected the minimum cut of marks of visually handicapped is 92. As the petitioner got 114 marks, thereafter the result has been declared with cut-off marks in which it is clear that 304 persons have been called in which the roll number of the petitioner was not included, therefore, the petitioner has made an application to respondent no.2 and filed the present writ petition.
(3.)Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the advertisement which is issued by the respondent is not a conformity with the provisions of Person with Disabilities (Equal Opportunity Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 which provides for three per cent reservation. He submits that in the original advertisement which is issued by the respondent no post was reserved for the physically handicapped persons and, therefore, the petitioner has mentioned before the column physically handicapped persons as "No". He further submits that the minimum cut-off marks in handicapped quota is 92 whereas the petitioner has secured 114 marks and therefore, he should have been selected for appointment on the said post.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.