CWP No. 23 of 2009. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 23 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 19th April, 2010. Harpreet Kaur Petitioner through Dr. M.L.Sachdeva, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Mrs. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 23, 8415 of 2009 and 817 of 2010 as common issues are involved in these cases. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No. 23 of 2009. [2]. The petitioner possesses academic qualification of M.A. She is a physically challenged person. She applied for the post of JBT Teacher and upon selection was offered appointment, though under the directions issued by this Court on 12.2.2002 but was not allowed to join her duties. The petitioner initiated contempt proceedings and thereafter only that she was given fresh appointment on 13.7.2006. The petitioner now contends that for the purposes of increment and seniority, she should be treated to have joined the post on 12.2.2002. Reliance is placed upon Rule 4.10 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume I, Part I. [3]. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondents have filed their counter-affidavit, opposing the CWP No. 23 of 2009. ::-2-:: petitioner's claim. [4]. The undisputed facts are that there were thirteen posts reserved for Physically challenged persons, out of which 4 each were reserved for [i] visually handicapped and [ii] hearing impaired and five for [iii] loco-motor disabled. Admittedly, four posts reserved for physically persons were filled but the remaining posts earmarked for blinds, deaf and dump remained vacant due to non-availability of the persons of these sub-categories. The petitioner had urged that the posts which have remained unfilled due to non-availability of candidates of the two sub-categories, were interchangeable and were required to be filled from amongst the loco-motor disabled candidates, especially in terms of Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the government instructions dated 16.01.1997 which read as follows:- “4. The reservation made for the categories of handicapped persons mentioned above is interchangeable amongst themselves if candidates belonging to a category are not available or if the nature of vacancies in an office is such that a given category of persons can not be employed. 5. If a vacancy reserved for the handicapped persons is not filled, the reservation shall be carried over for a period of up to three recruitment years. Any recruitment of the physically handicapped candidates will first be counted against the additional quota brought from previous years, if any, in their chronological order. If such candidates are not available for all the vacancies the other vacancies carried forward should be filled first and the comparatively later vacancies forward shall be further carried forward”. [5]. On the other hand, learned State Counsel argues that in view of Para 5 of the Government instructions dated 16.01.1997, it was imperative upon the Authorities to carry forward the posts reserved for visually handicapped or hearing impaired for three consecutive recruitment years and it was after non-availability of the CWP No. 23 of 2009. ::-3-:: candidate of these sub-categories that the unfilled posts could be offered to the physically handicapped persons. [6]. There is some merit in the contention raised by learned State Counsel. In fact, this Court has already taken this view in CWP No.14585 of 2008 decided on 24.02.2010 [Daljit Singh & Anr. V State of Punjab & Ors. [7]. For the reasons afore-stated, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to determine the expiry of period of three recruitment years in respect of the vacancies which remained unfilled due to non-availability of the candidates from the sub-categories of visually handicapped and hearing impaired. If the intervening period between the third recruitment year of these sub-categories and subsequent conversion of those posts for the sub-category, to which the petitioner belongs, is more than one year, the petitioner shall be entitled to be assigned seniority and notional pay fixation from the date of expiry of one year period after the third recruitment year. The needful shall be done within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. [8]. Disposed of. Dasti. April 19, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE