IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. (S/S) 351 of 2011 Sanjeev Pandey …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ….Respondents Present : Mr. A. M. Saklani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N. P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. B. D. Pande, Advocate for respondent no. 2. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. A. M. Saklani, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. N. P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. B. D. Pande, Advocate for respondent no.2. 2. The petitioner was a candidate for the post of Lecturer (History) in a Government College in the State of Uttarakhand for which selections were made by the State Public Service Commission. Under the reservation policy of the State of Uttarakhand, there was 3% horizontal reservation for such candidates who were physically challenged. Admittedly the petitioner is physically challenged person and he has annexed a certificate to this effect issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Nainital, as Annexure 2 to the writ petition, declaring that the petitioner is 60 per cent physically challenged. 3. The petitioner also appeared in the interview test where the petitioner has obtained 86.75 marks. According to the petitioner, the sole ground of the Public Service Commission is that as per the reservation policy of the State only one seat was liable to be reserved for physically challenged person in the category for the Lecturer (History). Admittedly, no such reservation has 2 been granted by the respondents. Hence the present writ petition. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the State Public Service Commission, it has been stated that earlier there was an instruction by the State Government that one post of Lecturer (History) shall be reserved for physically challenged person. All the same, subsequently there was no such specific instruction for the reservation and hence no post for physically challenged person in Lecturer (History). 5. The State Government though in its counter affidavit have taken a stand by and large admitting the case of the petitioner. In its para 3(C) of the counter affidavit as well as para 11 on the counter affidavit, it has been stated as under: Para 3(C) of the counter affidavit reads as follows:- “3(C) That as per the subsequent requisition, for selection on the posts of Lecturer History, total 51 posts were earmarked, out of which 15 posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste, 05 posts for Scheduled Tribes, 13 posts for OBC and 18 posts were for unreserved category. It is submitted that as per horizontal reservation in unreserved category for lecturer History, 5 posts were reserved for women category candidate, 01 post for Ex-Serviceman, 01 post for Physically Handicapped, 02 posts for Uttarakhand Freedom Fighter and one post was earmarked for Skilled Sport Person of Uttarakhand domicile. The said fact is evident from perusal of Annexure 6 to the writ petition.” Para 11 of the counter affidavit reads as follows:- “11. That in reply to the contents of paragraph no. 16 of the writ petition, it is submitted that as per the advertisement, 03% horizontal reservation is admissible for the Physically Handicapped candidate 3 of Uttarakhand domicile. Rest of the contents relate to the respondent no.2 and suitable reply for the same can be furnished by the respondent no.2 itself.” 6. In other words, the stand of the State Government is that they had instructed the State Public Service Commission in the selection process presently under challenge that one post of Lecturer (History) ought to have been remained reserved for physically challenged person. Apart from this, they have also admitted further that in case recommendation is made by the State Public Service Commission they would grant appointment to such a candidate. 7. Now the admitted position before this Court is that the State Government which presently grants reservation for such case, admit that there is reservation of one seat for the post of Lecturer (History)- an instruction, which has not been followed by the State Public Service Commission. As such, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the State Public Service Commission to call the petitioner for interview including any other similar physically challenged persons who had applied for the post of Lecturer (History) and subject to the marks obtained in the interview select atleast one candidate amongst them for the post of Lecturer (History). Needful be done by the State Public Service Commission within six weeks from today. 8. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 19.10.2011 Kuldeep