Civil Writ Petition No.2542 of 2009 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 24, 2009 Sanjay Kumar & others .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr.Inder Pal Goyat, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.2542 of 2009 (Sanjay Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others) and 1494 of 2007 (Chander Shekher and others Vs. State of Haryana and another), The petitioners are physically handicapped with low Civil Writ Petition No.2542 of 2009 : 2 : vision. The handicap of petitioner nos.1 to 3 is to the extent of 40% whereas petitioners No.4 and 5 suffer handicap to the extent of 50% and 70% respectively. All the petitioners are J.B.T. qualified. 560 posts of J.B.T. Teacher were advertised on 14.11.2006. Reservation in the physically handicapped category is made only for orthopaedically handicapped person, but no reservation is done for person like the petitioners, who are suffering from hearing impairment and blind or low vision. The grievance is that the reservation for the category of handicap is meant for all the handicapped persons, whether suffering such handicap due to orthopaedic or other reason. In support, reference is made to reservation of 3% quota for handicapped candidates for admission to various courses, which is meant for all the persons including blinds. The petitioners would also claim a right as per Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ( hereinafter called “the Act”). Even reference is made to the instructions issued by the Government on 16.12.1980, whereby 1% reservation in the direct recruitment to Class-III and IV posts in each of the category is made, but in this appointment, the quota meant for blindness or low vision and hearing impairment has been given to orthopaedically handicapped candidates. It is further stated that the full candidates were not available and only 330 posts could be filled out of 560 posts advertised. Reference is also made to the decision of the Expert Committee constituted under Section 32 of the Act, which has identified various posts suitable for handicapped candidates and primary teacher post is held to be suitable for the blind candidates. Civil Writ Petition No.2542 of 2009 : 3 : Accordingly, the action of the respondents in reserving these posts for only orthopeadically candidates is under challenge. Prayer for further direction is to fill up 1% of the posts from the candidates having blind or low vision. In the reply filed, the respondents have stated that decision was taken to transfer the functional control of Government Primary School to Zila Parishads/Nagar Parishads. It is accordingly stated that the Panchayat and Development Department framed their own service rules governing the conditions for the J.B.T.Teachers. This notification has again been rescinded and as such, the control of primary school was transferred to the Education Department. However, Panchayat and Development Department had not made any recruitment of JBT Teacher in the Handicapped category. It is in this background that 560 posts of JBT Teachers were advertised on 14.11.2006. To justify of filing up these posts only from amongst the candidates of orthopaedically handicapped candidates, it is stated that JBT teacher is required to teach students of primary class by writing on the black board as well as orally. Such teacher has to correct and guide children in writing and forming various alphabets and words besides simple arithmetic. Pointing out that the small children are restless and always remain active doing something or the other. The respondents would submit that it would be difficult for teachers with low vision or blind to check or control such children. It is then stated that such students are to be taught to recognize various shapes and colours, words and figures and are to draw such words and figures and colour them. On this basis, it is urged that the Civil Writ Petition No.2542 of 2009 : 4 : teacher who is blind, deaf or dumb would not be able to teach such students properly. In view of these requirement, the Department of Elementary Education, Haryana, had prepared a proposal and forwarded the same to the State Government through their communication dated 29.6.2005 to exempt Elementary Education Department from employing blind, deaf and dumb on the posts of JBT teachers. Director, Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Haryana, through its communication dated 30.6.2006, has allowed the Department of Elementary Education to inter-change the blind and deaf/dumb vacancies in physically disabled candidates against their 2% quota into over all quota of 3%. This decision of the Government was challenged in Civil Writ Petition No.20830 of 2006 but was negatived on 8.1.2007. The operative part of the order reads as under:- “We have considered the case of the petitioners and are of the view that taking into account the stand of the Department as mentioned above in Annexure P-9, the paramount consideration before the Department is to impart the best possible education to the innocent children of primary classes. To discipline such a group children, a teacher must be able to see and hear any disturbance and movement in the class where a blind of deaf and dumb teachers may prove to be a failure to teach the students of the Primary Classes. In the advertised posts, the offer is being made to the orthopaedically handicapped candidates suffering disability to the extent of 40% from the residents of Civil Writ Petition No.2542 of 2009 : 5 : Haryana, is in order and without any infirmity.” Since the issue has been subject matter of adjudication by this Court and was declined, the claim made in the present petition also deserves to be dismissed. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. August 24, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE