__________________________________________ Whether reporters of the local papers may be al l owed t o see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. CWP No.8716 of 2010. Decided on: December 29, 2011. Shobhu Ram, s/o Krishan Chand, r/o VPO Thandhar, Tehsil Kumarsain, District Shimla, H.P., presently C/o Jai Chand Negi, VPO Barang, Tehsil Kalpa, District Kinnaur, H.P. ..Petitioner Versus 1. State of H.P. through Chief Secretary. 2. State of H.P. through Principal Secretary (Social Justice and Women Empowerment). 3. Principle Secretary, Information and Public Relations, Govt. of Himachal Pradesh. 4. Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, through its Secretary. Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of appropriate writ of certiorari, mandamus, order or direction. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Anand Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents: Mr. A.K.Bansal, Addl.Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. D.K. Khanna, Advocate, for respondent No.4. __________________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh, Judge (oral): The petitioner is a visually impaired person. Third respondent notified the Recruitment & Promotion Rules - 2 - (Annexure P-2) on 27.4.2009, for the recruitment of District Public Relation Officer/ Information Officer Class-I( Gazetted) in the respondent-department. There was vacancy of three such Officers. Out of three posts, one was reserved for the category of visually impaired on regular basis to clear the backlog. Thus an advertisement was issued. 2. The Rules aforesaid contained essential qualifications for the said post, which reads as under:- (a) “Bachelor degree or its equivalent from a recognized University; (b) Bachelor of Journalism and Mass Communication/ Public relation or Post Graduate diploma and Journalism and Mass Communication/ Public Relations from recognized University. (c) Three years professional experience in Public relations/ Journalism/ Mass Communication in any Government/ Public Sector Undertaking and News Paper/ Electronics Media Organization of Standing gained after obtaining essential educational qualification.” 3. Though the petitioner applied against the reserved post for visually impaired vide Annexure P-3, but he was not having professional experience as required under Clause (c) aforesaid. Thus, vide Annexure P-5, he represented to the Director of respondent-department that this condition be diluted/ - 3 - relaxed, but it did not find favour, therefore, his candidature was rejected. 4. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed the present petition, on the ground that the essential qualifications prescribed for the post of District Public Relation Officer/ Information Officer was wrong and illegal, qua the visually impaired being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and also sought to quash and set-aside rejection letter Annexure P-6. 5. The petition was listed for hearing on 4.1.2011 before the Principal Bench of this Court and following order was passed:- “There will be a direction to respondents No.1 to 3 to take a decision in the mater of relaxation of the qualification, as suggested by the Director in Annexure P-5, taking note of the fact that the State is bound to give meaningful effect to its obligation under the provisions of “The persons with Disabilities ( Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995’. The decision above shall be taken within one month. 2. Subject to the decision taken by respondents No.1 to 3, respondent No.4 – Commission, shall take the required action. In case, the decision is not taken within one month as above and in case Commission holds the examination in the meanwhile, the petitioner will also be permitted to appear provisionally in the test. The petitioner will - 4 - produce a copy of this order before the respondents. Copy Dasti. Sd/- ( K.J. ) C.J. Sd/- (V.K.A), J” 6. Pursuant to the above direction, the third respondent submitted that the matter for amending the rules accordingly, but the respondents stated that it was to be processed through various channels and requires approval from the competent authority and it would take considerable time. On 12.5.2011, the Principal Bench was informed that the petitioner was permitted to participate in the selection process of Screening Test, thus it was kept open by the Court, to the Commission to proceed with the selection. 7. Now today the learned counsel for fourth respondent informed that the results are ready and produced sealed cover seeking permission to declare the same. The permission accorded and on opening, I found that it contained 10 leaves. It is noticed that the petitioner failed to secure required minimum marks. 8. In the above circumstances, no further orders are required to be passed in the writ petition, but however, the respondents may amend or relax the - 5 - aforesaid essential requirement for future in view of the letter dated 28.9.2010 (Annexure P-5) of the Director to the visually impaired persons. No further orders are required to be passed in this petition. The petition is disposed of so also the pending applications, if any. 9. After perusal, the sealed cover containing the result, is returned to the learned counsel for fourth respondent. The Court Master is hereby directed to sign and stamp it by making endorsement to this effect. December 29, 2011. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge