CWP No. 14427 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 14427 of 2011 Date of decision: 09.08.2011 Gurtej Singh and another ...Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate for the petitioners *** RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) The instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of directing the respondents to consider and appoint the petitioners as teaching fellow against the seats reserved for physically handicapped in view of instructions issued by the State of Punjab vide Annexure P-4 and the law laid down by this Court in CWP No. 12886 of 2010 titled as Jagjit Kaur and others vs. State of Punjab and others (Annexure P-8) and also in view of the fact that 8 seats of physical handicapped quota in male in District Ludhiana are still lying vacant. 2. The petitioners applied for the post of teaching fellow in District Ludhiana in the physical handicapped quota. In the list released by the department, Gurtej Singh-petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 14 on account of merit point 52.152 while Jagjit Singh was placed at Sr. No. 20 on account of having secured 47.178 marks. But both of them were not given appointment CWP No. 14427 of 2011 -2- letters on the ground that 1% seats in orthopadiecally handicapped had already been filled. It has further been submitted that still 8 seats of physical handicapped quota are lying vacant. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to notification of the Punjab Government dated 02.05.1997. As per the statutory provisions of 1995 Act, the Punjab Government issued notification on 02.05.1997 reserving 3% vacancies to be filled up from amongst the physical handicapped category and the vacancies following at point 11,40 and 71 are reserved for them. These instructions further provide that the reservations made for the categories of handicapped persons are inter-changeable amongst themselves. (Annexure P-4). Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the petitioners have given representations to the respondents to consider them for appointment against the posts reserved for physically handicapped. It has remained undisputed that the claim made by the petitioner in the instant writ petition has already been sought by another physically handicapped before another Bench of this Court in CWP No. 12886 of 2010 titled as Jagjit Kaur and others vs. State of Punjab though Secretary and others whereby it has been held that applying the principles laid down under clause 6 of the letter dated 2.05.1997, the petitioners are entitled to be considered against unfilled vacancies and the respondents were directed to consider them for appointment within one month (Annexure P-8). Thereafter, number of writ petitions were filed claiming the same relief and CWP No. 14427 of 2011 -3- these have been disposed of in terms of Annexure P-8. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the above said judgment. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. The petitioners shall be considered for appointment, if any vacancy is available subject to their merit in the selection process and other eligibility criteria. It is further directed that this process be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. August 09, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) G.Arora JUDGE