* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 545/2009
RANVEER SINGH RAJPOOT ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Avadh Bihari Kaushik, Advocate.
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sushil Dutt Salwan, Advocate for GNCTD.
Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, standing counsel for the MCD with
Mr. Alok Singh, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR
ORDER
% 15.12.2009
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 22.10.2009 passed by the
learned Single Judge dismissing the Appellant‟s Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7207/2009. We
have heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The Appellant is a physically handicapped person. There was an advertisement
issued by Respondent No. 3, Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB), for
the post of Staff Nurse. Admittedly, the advertisement did not provide any reservation
for physically handicapped persons among the vacancies advertised. The Appellant
applied under the unreserved (UR) category. Having failed to be selected, he filed the
aforementioned writ petition in this Court.
3. The first prayer in the writ petition was to restrain the Respondents from
appointing a person to the post pending the disposal of the writ petition. The further
prayer was for a direction to the Respondents to make “appropriate provision for
reservation for the disabled persons as per Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities
(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995” (Act). The
learned Single Judge recorded the statement of the standing counsel for Respondent No. 2
that after the filing of the said petition by the Appellant it had been decided to make
reservation for disabled persons in future vacancies. However, relief was denied to the
Appellant because he had applied under the UR category.
4. It appears that the aforementioned advertisement was issued at the request of the
Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) for filling up 280 posts of Staff Nurse in the
Health Department, MCD. We have seen a copy of the communication dated 24.11.2009
LPA 545/2009 Page 1 of 2
by the Administrative Officer (Health), MCD in which it is pointed that the DSSSB had
recommended 279 candidates for appointment to the post of „A‟ Grade Staff Nurse in
MCD as against 280 vacancies. Consequently there is one vacancy to be filled up. This
postion has been confirmed by Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, learned standing counsel for the
Respondent No. 2.
5. Section 33 of Act mandates the reserving of posts for the physically disabled
persons. Admittedly, no such reservation as mandated by the Act was made while
issuing the advertisement in question. Since there were 280 vacancies, and 279 have
been filled up and one is stated to be available, it appears to this Court to be in the
interests of justice to direct that the Appellant must be admitted to the said vacant seat.
Merely making a provision for the disabled in future in terms of the Act which has been
in force since 1995, is not a satisfactory answer to the grievance of the Appellant. He
cannot be faulted for applying in the UR category when in fact no provision was made for
applying in the disabled category. Since, in any event, there is one vacancy available, the
Appellant should be accommodated by the MCD against the aforementioned vacancy.
We direct that this be done within a period of eight weeks from today.
6. The impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside. The
Appellant will be appointed to the vacancy in the post of Staff Nurse within a period of
eight weeks from today. The appeal is allowed in the above terms with costs of
Rs.5,000/- which will be paid by the Respondent to the Appellant.
CHIEF JUSTICE
S.MURALIDHAR, J
DECEMBER 15, 2009
dk
LPA 545/2009 Page 2 of 2