HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.1764 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.09.2011 **** Harwinder Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** 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? **** Present: Mr. PS Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab **** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is a physically-challenged person suffering from hearing impairment to the extent of 50%. The petitioner applied for the post of Senior Laboratory Attendant in response to the advertisement (Annexure P4) in the reserved category of physically- challenged persons on the basis of his academic qualification of 10+2 but has not been selected. (2). The respondents have filed their reply/affidavit and in preliminary submission No.2 the fact that 3% posts are reserved for the physically handicapped category has been admitted. It is however, maintained that the persons who were deaf & dumb or are suffering with CWP No.1764 of 2009.doc - 2 – partial hearing impairment have been declared ‘unfit’ for the post of Senior Laboratory Attendant vide policy decision dated 04.03.2003 (Annexure R1-T). (3). In other words, the petitioner’s claim as per his merit is not disputed but appointment has been denied on the ground that he is suffering with partial hearing impairment and is unsuitable for appointment as Senior Laboratory Attendant. (4). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. There can indeed be no dispute that the enactment of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 or our commitment as a Nation to be pioneer in protecting the human rights and also signatory to the Proclamation on the Full Participation and Equality of People with Disabilities in Asia Pacific Region, it is imperative upon the respondent-State to take immediate steps for integrating the ‘specially-able’ ones to the mainstream of the society to enable them to enjoy equal opportunities and participation in national life. It is very much expedient necessary to imbibe confidence amongst the physically-challenged persons by assigning the challenging tasks to them. The obsolete misconceptions ought not be allowed to presume CWP No.1764 of 2009.doc - 3 – unsuitability unless a fair trial is given to the persons like the petitioner. (5). Be that as it may, there is no necessity for this Court to go into the justification or propriety of the so-called ‘policy-decision’ dated 04.03.2003 (Annexure R1) for the reason that counsel for the petitioner has no objection if the petitioner is adjusted against some other post carrying pay-scale not less than that of Senior Laboratory Attendant. (6). The petitioner having established his right to Public Employment, in my considered view, is entitled to be appointed to a post which, according to the respondents, is suitable and would enable the petitioner to discharge his duties efficiently. (7). The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the respondents are directed to offer appointment to the petitioner on a post which carries pay scale not less than that of Senior Laboratory Attendant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If there were candidates higher in merit than the petitioner in the category of physically-challenged persons, this order shall not deprive them of their right to seek appointment. (8). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. CWP No.1764 of 2009.doc - 4 – 15.09.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge