Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/11203/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11203 of 2010
=========================================================
SONALBEN
MANILAL MAKWANA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 4 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SATYEN B RAWAL for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR. M.R. MENGDEY, LEARNED ASST. GOVERNMENT
PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1, 4,
MR HS MUNSHAW for Respondent(s)
: 2,3
DHARMESH D NANAVATY for Respondent(s) :
5,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HON'BLE
SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
Date
: 25/01/2011
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
Mr. Satyen B Rawal, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. M.R.
Mengdey, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents Nos.1
and 4, Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for respondents Nos.2 and 3
and Mr. Dharmesh D. Nanavati, learned advocate for respondent No.5.
It
is submitted by Mr. Satyen B. Rawal, learned advocate for the
petitioner that by way of an advertisement, 259 posts were advertised
for appointment of Vidya Sahayak. The petitioner is physically
disabled and as per provisions of The Persons with Disabilities
(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation)
Act, 1995, 3% reservation should be given to physically disabled
persons. Therefore, out of 259 posts, eight posts should have been
reserved for physically disabled persons. It is contended that
instead of eight posts, the respondents have filled-in seven posts in
the said category and the petitioner has not been given appointment.
It is further submitted that certain irregularities have taken place
in the selection process, which vitiate the appointment of respondent
No.5.
Mr.
H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for respondents Nos.2 and 3 submits
that the advertisement makes it clear that out of 259 posts, 38 posts
have been carried forward as a backlog in the S.E.B.C. category,
therefore, these posts have been excluded from 259 posts while
computing 3% reservation for physically disabled persons. It is
contended that the posts remaining would be 221, out of which, if 3%
reservation is computed, seven seats are reserved for physically
disabled persons. The respondents have already given appointment to
seven persons in the said category, calculating 1% each in the
categories of (a) blindness or low vision, (b) hearing impairment and
(c) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy. It is emphasised that
respondent No.3 and the petitioner both suffer from locomotor
disability but respondent No.5 is higher in merit, therefore, she has
been given appointment.
Mr. Dharmesh D. Nanavati, learned advocate for respondent No.5
submits that the said respondent has been working since the past two
years, and even otherwise, there is no illegality or infirmity in her
appointment, as she is higher in merit than the petitioner.
Rule,
returnable on 01.03.2011.
Mr.
M.R. Mengdey, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives notice of
Rule for respondents Nos.1 and 4, Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate
waives notice of Rule for respondents Nos.2 and 3 and Mr. Dharmesh D.
Nanavati, learned advocate waives notice of Rule for respondent No.5.
Mr.
H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for respondents Nos.2 and 3 submits
that he may be permitted to file an additional affidavit, clarifying
certain issues raised in the petition. He may do so, by the next date
of hearing.
(Smt.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.)
Safir*
Top