Court judgements: Allahabad High Court
Safiqul Rahman son of Sri Abdul Rahman presently posted as Constable 4th Battalion
Vs. State of U.P. through Secretary, Ministry of Home, Police Anubhag, Civil Secretary, U.P. Shasan, The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment), The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Headquarter P.A.C. Mahanagar and Commandant, 4th Battalion, P.A.C.
Decided on: 09.09.08
Judge: Tarun Agarwala, J.
The petitioner, who was chosen for position of Constable by the respondent, was then found to have colour blindness by the respondent, and was given an order which terminated his services. The petitioner was aggrevied, and filed this petition.
Dr. Ravindra Kumar Pandey son of Ramesh Chandra Pandey v. State of U. P. through Secretary Department of Higher Education Government of U. P., Director of Education (Higher Education) and U. P. Higher Education Services Commission through its Secretary
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12603 of 2003
Decided On: 03.07.2006
Allahabad High Court
Judges: V. M. Sahai and Sabhajeet Yadav, JJ.
Facts: An advertisement was published by U.P. Higher Education Service Commission, Allahabad inviting applications for the post of lecturers in Geography (with 41 vacancies in the subject) and various other subjects. The Petitioner applied for the post of lecturer in Geography as a general category candidate and claimed reservation as physically handicapped. When the results were announced it was found that the petitioner was not selected. He challenged the selection process on the ground that horizontal reservation was not provided to the physically challenged candidates like him, otherwise he would have been selected. The Commission countered the argument by saying that out of 41 vacancies, 21 were reserved for the general category, 12 for OBC, 8 for SC and none for ST. Now, if the reservation for the physically handicapped would have been provided in the general category, it would have amount to even less than 0.5 seat which was impracticable to implement. Also, the notification sent by the Director of Higher Education didn’t mention about the reservation for physically handicapped.
Held: The Court held the following:
1.) The reservation for physically handicapped is a matter of law and has to be provided even in the absence of a notification.
2.) The allocation or bifurcation of vacancies to different categories of handicap cannot reduce the percentage of reservation for physically handicapped. The allocation of one percent each to different category of disability is to avoid undue benefit of reservation to one or the other category. That cannot be the yardstick for determining percentage of reservation.
3.) A disabled or handicapped candidate may be either of General, OBC or SC/ST category. He has to be adjusted to the caste/category he belongs. The provision for adjustment of selected candidate to the caste/category to which he belongs has been erroneously construed as horizontal reservation being caste/category based.
4.) If after working out 3% reservation in case there is only one vacancy available to be filled from physically handicapped category, it should be offered first to candidate suffering from blindness or low vision and if no such candidate is available then it should go to the next category of disability, namely, to the category of hearing impairment and again if there is no such candidate available, then it should be offered to the candidate suffering from locomotor disability or cerebral palsy. It would be within the permissible limit of 1% reservation for each category of disability.
In the end a writ of mandamus was issued to the respondents to treat one post of Lecturer in Geography horizontally reserved for physically handicapped in the selection held.
Sri Gurbux Singh Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax
Income Tax Reference No. 187 of 1988
Decided on: 04.04.05
Judges: R.K. Agarwal and Prakash Krishna, JJ.
The petitioner requested that Rs.10,000 be deducted from his taxes by the tax commissioner, however this request was rejected by the respondent on the grounds that the petitioner could not be considered blind. The petitioner was aggreived, and filed a petition.
Km. Archana Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
C.M.W.P. No. 47556 of 2002
Judges: M. Katju and Umeshwar Pandey, JJ.
The petitioner, whois totally blind, has alleged that certain parts of the Disabilities Act of 1995 have not been implemented by the government since 1996.
Vinod Kumar Rai v. Public Service Commission, U.P., Allahabad and ors.
2002 (2) AW 1300
C.M.W.P. No. 7530 of 1998
Decided On: 11.03.2002
Allahabad High Court
Judges: M. Katju and Rakesh Tiwari, JJ.
Facts: The Petitioner who is a physically challenged person has prayed for reservation for physically handicapped persons in the P.C.S. (J) Examination. In the advertisement inviting applications for the P.C.S. (J) there was no provision for any such reservation.
Held: Rule 20 of U.P. Nyayik Sewa Niyamawali, 1951 contain provision for reservation in favor of SC/ST and “other categories”. In the opinion of the court, the words “other category of candidate in accordance with the decision of the State Government as existing at the time of recruitment” clearly indicated that this would include reservation for physically handicapped persons as well. Hence, there was 3% reservation for physically handicapped persons in the U.P. Nyayik Sewa.
The court also directed that this petition and similarly connected petitions which were in respect of examination of U. P. Nyayik Sewa in different years and since wrongly no reservation was provided for physically handicapped persons, the total vacancies for the 3% reservation which should have been given to physically handicapped persons in view of the above discussion should be now advertised together, and those persons who would have been eligible for these posts at the relevant time, would be treated as eligible and they could then apply for the same.
Also the Court directed that in future also, there should be 3% reservation for physically handicapped persons for vacancies in the U. P, Nyayik Sewa.
National Federation for Blind v. State of U.P. and others
(2000) 87 All India Reporter 258
Petition no. 361 (MB)/2000
Date of Decision: 28-01-2000
Allahabad High Court - Lucknow bench
Judge: S.H.A. Raza, R.D.Mathur,J J.
Fact: Dr. Pramod Kumar Singh, a blind lecturer has been allotted a plot of land leased out under Govt. scheme known as Shikshak Vihar. He approached state of U.P for giving concessions in rates of the property in accordance with Sec. 43 of Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. But U.P Govt. denied leasing out land on concessional basis on the fact that state Govt. as well as local authorities has not framed a scheme in this case favouring persons suffering with disabilities.
Held: Land and houses at concessional rates were given by Lucknow Development Authority to various categories of persons such as legislators, journalists, freedom fighters, etc. Points of denial of land at concessional rates to handicapped persons are not indicated in the order passed by Lucknow Development Authority. Any reservation being made by the state to the disabled section of the society is in consonance with the international proclamation, declaration and convenants made by U.N organization and with sec. 43 of the PWD Act, 1995. Non-framing of such a scheme by a state Govt. in favour of persons suffering from such disabilities would not in any way negate the provisions of the Act. Section 43 of the act provides that appropriate Government and local authorities shall frame schemes in favour of persons with disabilities, for the preferential allotment of land or houses at concessional rates. Based on these facts state authority was directed to frame a scheme regarding concession rates in leasing out of land in favour of persons with disabilities and notify within a period of three months of this order.