Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors.

filed CWP No.11845 of 2011 which was disposed of on 2.5.2012 wherein, the respondents had placed on record an affidavit dated 12.3.2012 stating that the Government had issued instructions to ensure the filling up the backlog of vacancies meant for Disabled persons vide notification dated

7.1.2010 and 7.4.2011. On the basis of aforesaid facts, it was contended that the process of identifying the backlog vacancies was in place and as and when the vacancies were identified, such posts shall be filled up to maintain overall 3 percentage in terms of the Act. A further communication dated 1.5.2012 was placed on record clarifying that the persons with disabilities have been given horizontal reservation. In view of the aforesaid stand taken, the said writ petition was disposed of. On the basis of the aforesaid judgment and the facts, counsel for the petitioner has challenged the selection in question stating that the horizontal reservation has not been adhered to in the impugned selection. However, counsel for the petitioner was at a loss to refer to any pleadings/averments/data as to how the impugned selection can be quashed being violative of the horizontal reservation. Moreover, the petitioner has claimed himself to be visually handicapped and thus, he could have claimed his right to selection against such vacancy. Admittedly, only one vacancy has been reserved for visually handicapped person. As per the result, the said vacancy has been filled up. The petitioner has not challenged the filling up such a vacancy on any other ground. The petitioner has already taken part in the selection process in spite of the fact that reservation was notified and provided in the advertisement itself. After taking a chance for selection now the petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge such reservation as advertised by the respondents. Not only this, it may further be noticed that the petitioner has placed on record a certificate Annexure P-7 to show that he is a physically handicapped person. However, a perusal of the said certificate would show that the same has been issued to the petitioner being polio stricken by some Handicapped Welfare Society and does not in any way support the averments made in para No. 3 of the writ petition wherein the petitioner has stated that he is visually handicapped. Counsel for the petitioner was at a loss to show as to whether such a certificate which was not issued by any Medical Board/Authority could be taken into consideration for taking benefit under the category of Physically Handicapped. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in the petition. Dismissed. November 2, 2012 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE