IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 09.09.2011 C.W.P.No.1822 of 2011 All India Blind Employees’ Association ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mrs. Veena Kumari, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.P.S.Mann, Addl. AG, Punjab, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. The petitioner has sought a direction of this Court to the respondents to modify advertisement dated 26.11.2009 and addendum dated 21.12.2009 (Annexures P-1 and P-2 respectively) so as to increase the number of posts reserved under the disabled category from 5 to 6 in terms of Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’) as well as to bifurcate 3% of posts reserved in the Physically Handicapped category equally amongst three categories of Physically Handicapped persons i.e. (i) Blindness or low vision; (ii) Hearing impairment and; (iii) Locomotor disability or cerebral palsy. CWP No.1822 of 2011 A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2- Punjab Public Service Commission pointing out that 5 posts for the Physically Handicapped category have been advertised as per the requisition received from the Government i.e. one is for Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch); one is for Tehsildar and; three are for Excise & Taxation Officers. 66 candidates have been short-listed against the 5 vacancies, as the marks of 2 candidates at Sr.Nos.65 & 66 were equal. It has been further pointed out that 12 candidates were found eligible under Hearing Impaired category out of which 5 candidates have been short-listed. It is also pointed out that bifurcation of the vacancies is for the concerned Department of the Government. In an affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government, it has been pointed out that the vacancies falling at point 11, 40 & 71 were reserved for three categories of Physically Handicapped such as Blindness or low vision, Hearing impairment and Locomotor disability or cerebral palsy and that while calculating the reserved posts for handicapped persons only roster points of one establishment of the same department can be processed and not by clubbing cadre/posts of other departments. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that separate list of each category of Physically handicapped is to be prepared and the candidates called for main examination i.e. thirteen times of the posts of each category i.e. Blindness or low vision, Hearing impairment and Locomotor disability or cerebral palsy, whereas the Commission has called 66 candidates from the Physically Handicapped category irrespective of the disability. Thus, such action is not justifiable. 2 CWP No.1822 of 2011 We have examined somewhat similar question in LPA No.1053 of 2011 titled “Gur Jai Pal Singh Vs. Punjab Public Service Commission and another” decided on 08.09.2011, wherein the argument that in terms of the reservation policy, the candidates of reserved category, who come on their own merit in the General category should be excluded from calculating the candidates to be called for main examination from the reserved categories was declined relying upon Jitendra Kumar Singh and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2010) 3 SCC 119 and Andhra Pradesh Public Service CommissionVs. Baloji Badhvath and others 2009 (5) SCC 1. It has been found that the policy of reservation is not applicable at the stage of holding of preliminary examination, as it is only an examination to determine the eligibility. The reservation policy is to be applied only at the stage, when the posts are to be filled up. Therefore, for the reasons recorded in “Gur Jai Pal Singh’s case (supra), the action of the Commission in calling 66 candidates from Physically Handicapped category cannot be said to be unjust or unfair, at this stage, as it is only an eligibility test. The candidates equal to thirteen times of posts in each category of disability need not be called to appear in the main examination. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 09.09.2011 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) Vimal JUDGE 3