LPA 545/2009 Page 1 of 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 545/2009 RANVEER SINGH RAJPOOT ..... Appellant Through Mr. Avadh Bihari Kaushik, Advocate. versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr. Sushil Dutt Salwan, Advocate for GNCTD. Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, standing counsel for the MCD with Mr. Alok Singh, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR O R D E R % 15.12.2009 1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 22.10.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Appellant‟s Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7207/2009. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Appellant is a physically handicapped person. There was an advertisement issued by Respondent No. 3, Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB), for the post of Staff Nurse. Admittedly, the advertisement did not provide any reservation for physically handicapped persons among the vacancies advertised. The Appellant applied under the unreserved (UR) category. Having failed to be selected, he filed the aforementioned writ petition in this Court. 3. The first prayer in the writ petition was to restrain the Respondents from appointing a person to the post pending the disposal of the writ petition. The further prayer was for a direction to the Respondents to make “appropriate provision for reservation for the disabled persons as per Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995” (Act). The learned Single Judge recorded the statement of the standing counsel for Respondent No. 2 that after the filing of the said petition by the Appellant it had been decided to make reservation for disabled persons in future vacancies. However, relief was denied to the Appellant because he had applied under the UR category. 4. It appears that the aforementioned advertisement was issued at the request of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) for filling up 280 posts of Staff Nurse in the Health Department, MCD. We have seen a copy of the communication dated 24.11.2009 LPA 545/2009 Page 2 of 2 by the Administrative Officer (Health), MCD in which it is pointed that the DSSSB had recommended 279 candidates for appointment to the post of „A‟ Grade Staff Nurse in MCD as against 280 vacancies. Consequently there is one vacancy to be filled up. This postion has been confirmed by Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, learned standing counsel for the Respondent No. 2. 5. Section 33 of Act mandates the reserving of posts for the physically disabled persons. Admittedly, no such reservation as mandated by the Act was made while issuing the advertisement in question. Since there were 280 vacancies, and 279 have been filled up and one is stated to be available, it appears to this Court to be in the interests of justice to direct that the Appellant must be admitted to the said vacant seat. Merely making a provision for the disabled in future in terms of the Act which has been in force since 1995, is not a satisfactory answer to the grievance of the Appellant. He cannot be faulted for applying in the UR category when in fact no provision was made for applying in the disabled category. Since, in any event, there is one vacancy available, the Appellant should be accommodated by the MCD against the aforementioned vacancy. We direct that this be done within a period of eight weeks from today. 6. The impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside. The Appellant will be appointed to the vacancy in the post of Staff Nurse within a period of eight weeks from today. The appeal is allowed in the above terms with costs of Rs.5,000/- which will be paid by the Respondent to the Appellant. CHIEF JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR, J DECEMBER 15, 2009 dk