CWP No.9311 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.9311 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.05.2010 **** Reeta Randhawa . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . 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. Surmukh Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). Notice of motion. Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to call upon the respondents to file their counter-affidavit at this stage. (2). The petitioner is a physically challenged person who is suffering with hearing impairment to the extent of 40%. Her grievance is that though she has got 66.6 merit points in the selection for the post of Hindi Teacher but still has not got appointment even when respondent No.4, who has got 65.08 merit points only has already been appointed. (3). The petitioner has further asserted that she possesses the requisite qualification and is otherwise fully eligible CWP No.9311 of 2010.doc - 2 – for appointment to the subject post. The petitioner has also served a legal notice dated 02.02.2010 (Annexure P11) upon the official respondents but that too is without any response. (4). Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the plea taken by the petitioner, I am of the considered view that the petitioner’s claim for appointment as Hindi Teacher deserves to be considered, rather with compassion and she deserves to be given appointment even by relaxing the conditions and/or increasing the quota meant for orthopaedically/physically-challenged persons, even if so required, without disturbing the appointment of respondent No.4, who is also a physically-challenged person. Suffice it to observe that the State authorities are obligated to keep in view the legislative object and spirit behind enactment of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 coupled with the duties cast upon them as a Welfare State. (5). The writ petition is accordingly allowed with a direction that in case the petitioner fulfills the basic qualifications prescribed for the post and actually falls under the above-mentioned reserved category, she be given CWP No.9311 of 2010.doc - 3 – appointment as per merit within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (6). Ordered accordingly. (7). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 19.05.2010 vishal shonkar