Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995
Sections 32 & 33—Identification of posts which can be reserved for persons with disabilities and reservation of posts—Government Order issued by State Government for the post of Safai-Karmis struck down by High Court but selection to the post of Safai-Karmis made was not interfered with—Appeal—Identification of post and category of disabled candidates who could be appointed against the posts reserved is the power conferred on the appropriate Government—Such exercise and the reservation of posts could have been interfered with without holding such reservation to be totally arbitrary, irrational or against the objectives sought to be achieved and recognized principles—Since posts of Safai-Karmis are not identified to be filled up from amongst the candidates having locomotor disability, the appellant could not be appointed against such category of post, even though they appeared for cycling test or for interview—Appellants were not eligible for appointment against such posts in terms of the advertisement—Government Order is part of the advertisement and therefore, the appellants cannot claim appointment against the post reserved for disabled candidates only for the reason that they are locomotor disabled candidates when such post was not reserved for the Safai-Karmis—Order of High Court striking the Government Order as a whole is on the basis of surmise and conjectures and liable to be set aside—No merit found in present appeal—Appeal disposed of accordingly.
[Paras 17 & 18]