IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2866 of 2009. Date of decision: 29.08.2011 ___________________________________________________ Kamlesh Kumar …. Petitioner. Versus The State of HP & Others .. Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. AG for respondents No.1 and 3. ______________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral). 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in not giving him appointment as a drawing teacher under the handicapped category despite the fact that he was selected and found fit for the post. His candidature was rejected only on the ground that he did not belong to the district in question. ___________ Whether the Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment Yes. 2 2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner belongs to the handicapped category and fulfills all the requirements for being appointed as a Drawing Master under the quota reserved for physically handicapped in the hearing impaired (scheduled caste) category. The petitioner belongs to Sirmaur district and he received two letters; one from the Deputy Director, Elementary Education, Shimla and the other from Deputy Director, Elementary Education, Chamba. By these letters, he was informed that his name had been sponsored by the Employment Exchange/Physically Handicapped Cell for recruitment to the post of drawing master. In both these letters, he was informed that he should appear for the interview on 25.2.2008. 3. Obviously, the petitioner could not appear on the same date both at Shimla and Chamba and he opted to appear at Shimla. In Shimla, there were only two candidates in the hearing impaired category of scheduled caste. The second candidate Ram Prakash did not fulfill the requisite qualification, since his disability was temporary in nature and even his physical handicapped certificate had expired. The petitioner 3 was, therefore, eligible but he has been rejected only on the ground that he is not from the district and hence cannot be considered. 4. This is the stand of the respondents in the reply also. It is indeed surprising that the State is taking a stand that persons from outside the district cannot be considered for employment under the physically disabled categories. There is no bar for recruitment of teachers belonging to one district of Himachal Pradesh in another district of Himachal Pradesh. Nothing has been placed on record how such a bar can be placed only in regard to physically handicapped persons. This Court, time and again has observed that instead of following the letter and spirit of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, the State under one pretext or the other is trying to thwart the rights of such physically handicapped and disabled persons. The action of the respondents cannot be sustained. Therefore, the same is set aside and the respondents are directed not to hold the petitioner ineligible only on the ground that he does not belong to district Shimla. This is no intelligible or rationale criteria. 4 5. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to treat the petitioner to be a candidate eligible for employment and take further steps towards the appointment of the petitioner as drawing master within six weeks from the production of a certified copy of the judgment. “Copy Dasti” (Deepak Gupta) Judge August 27, 2011. (Krn Guleria)