IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 16153 of 2009 Date of Decision: 25.5.2011. Mandeep Kaur and another --Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. M.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Chahal, D.A.G., Punjab. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioners have filed this petition in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to interchange twenty posts lying vacant in the category of deaf, dumb and blind into orthopaedically handicapped category. A similar issue came up before this Court in CWP No. 12886 of 2010. The question of shifting of reserved vacancies from one handicapped category to another handicapped category was examined in this writ petition and following observations have been made:- “ In view of the conflicting stand of the parties, the only issue which requires consideration of this Court is the true object, purport and import of clauses 6 & 7 of the circular. From the reading of the circular, it appears that both these clauses are independent of each other and not interdependent or inter-related. The object of Clause 7 is that if no candidate is available under the handicapped category then unfilled vacancies are to be carried forward for at least three recruitment years, to be de-reserved thereafter. However, the true import and interpretation of clause 6 is that if no candidate is available in any one of the three categories the vacancies can be allowed to be occupied by physically disabled candidate from other category. This is the true purpose of CWP. No. 16153 of 2009 -2- providing interchanging of the vacancies. Clause 7 will come into operation if the candidates under all the categories or less number of candidates than vacancies are not available. Thus, firstly clause 6 is to be applied and thereafter clause 7 of the circular. It is stated in the writ petitions that vacancies are available under the physically handicapped category and except the petitioners, who are otherwise eligible, no other candidate under blindness or low visions or hearing impairment is available; thus, applying the principle laid down under clause 6, the petitioners are to be considered against unfilled vacancies.” In view of the above, this petition is allowed in terms of the aforementioned judgement and the respondents are directed to consider the petitioners for appointment against the unfilled handicapped vacancies subject to the condition that these vacancies are still existing. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 25.5.2011. lucky