Civil Writ Petition No.932 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.932 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 19, 2011 Rattan Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Haryana Public Service Commission ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. H.N. Mehtani, Advocate, for the respondent. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Writ petition Nos. 412, 932, 1335, 1774, 2450 and 2822 of 2011 are being disposed of together as common question of law is involved in these petitions. The petitioners in all these writ petitions are physically handicap candidates, who have not been appointed though apparently were meritorious in the said reserved category. The petitioners have been denied consideration primarily due to misreading of the instructions issued by the State of Haryana and by the Public Service Commission regulating the appointments of handicap category. The issue, thus, which would arise for consideration in these petitions is whether the instructions, which are Civil Writ Petition No.932 of 2011 -2- issued for clarification or for benefit of Physically Handicap category, can be allowed to operate in a manner to put the petitioners to prejudice? How the candidates suffering from physical handicap have been made to suffer further can be seen in these cases. For the ease of discussion, the facts are being noticed from CWP No.932 of 2011. The petitioner in this case is Rattan Singh, who suffers from 100% physical handicap. He also belongs to BC category. The petitioners in all these cases were the applicants for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Education Department. Total posts advertised were 1317. Out of these 320 posts were meant for Lecturer in English. Out of these 6 posts were meant for Physically Handicap candidates. Similarly, the petitioners in other cases were applicants for appointment to the post of Lecturer in different subjects, where also different numbers of seats were reserved for Physically Handicap category candidates. Petitioner-Rattan Singh suffers from 100% disability of lower limb. He is having qualification of B.A. B.Ed., M.A. (English), M.Ed. and M.Phil. Obviously, he would have acquired these qualifications with much more efforts because of his handicap. Mere fact that a person suffering from 100% handicap has been able to achieve so much and has been able to compete for post of Lecturer would in itself be an indication of his perseverance. After making his application for appointment to the post, the petitioner appeared for the screening test and scored 39 marks. At that stage, he learnt that his roll number was not shown in the category of Physically Handicap candidates. Since he is also a BC Civil Writ Petition No.932 of 2011 -3- and dependent of Ex-serviceman, his name was shown in the name of candidates of dependent of Ex-serviceman, as he had ticked these categories as well. The petitioner, however, could not reach the cut off marks in BC category though he was above the cut off point for physically handicap category. Persons with lesser marks than the petitioner were shown as successful for the purpose of interview in the category of physical handicap. Aggrieved against this action of the Commission, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Similar is the grievance of the petitioners in other cases. All the petitioners are meeting the requirement of cut off point, if their case is considered in the handicap category. But since they have been considered in reserved category like SC/BC, where they were not reaching the cut off point, all the petitioners have not been named in the list of candidates who have made it for the interview. Notice of motion was issued. Reply is filed in writ petition No.932 of 2011. The pleadings, however, are not complete in all the cases. Since the issue involved and the defence is common in all these case, there is no need to wait for the completion of pleadings in all cases. In its reply filed, the Commission has basically relied upon instructions (Annexure P-5) issued by the respondent-State. The Commission in its reply has made reference to para 4 (d) of these instructions, regarding the decision of the State Government. This paragraph reads as under:- “If a physically handicapped person availing himself of the benefit of the reservation under these Civil Writ Petition No.932 of 2011 -4- instructions belong to some other reserved category, he shall be entitled to the benefits available to that reserved category which he belongs.” On this basis, it is pleaded that once the petitioners belong to reserved category and had so indicated in their application forms, their cases were to be considered in that reserved category and not in the category of physically handicap category. The manner in which the Commission is reading these instructions cannot find approval in any sense. These instructions have been issued for physically handicap persons in Group C & D posts in the State Government. Obviously, the purpose and reasons for issuing these instructions would be for the benefit of physically handicapped candidates. These instructions, in my view, cannot be read in a manner to deprive them of their right of consideration in physically handicap category. Instructions, which are issued for benefit of a particular class, cannot be read in a manner to cause prejudice to the said class or category. I have read and re-read para 4 (d) of the instructions, which is heavily relied by the counsel for the Commission. What it says is that if a physically handicapped person is availing benefit of reservation under these instructions, he shall be entitled to the benefits available to that reserved category to which he belongs. How this can be read to prejudice the case of physically handicap category, is beyond comprehension. Obvious purpose of para 4 (d) is that if a physically handicap category candidate is at advantage or can derive any benefit because of he being reserved category, that is Civil Writ Petition No.932 of 2011 -5- to be allowed to him. Thus, he being from reserved category also cannot take away his right for consideration in the category of physical handicap, especially so when he has so applied in the application form submitted by him. A provision, which is made for the benefit is being read by the Commission in a manner to deprive the beneficiaries. That can never be the rule of reading a provision or instructions. The reason and purpose for issuing these instructions has to be seen and appreciated. The subject heading of these instructions, which reads- “Reservation of posts for the physically handicap persons in Group C& D posts (Class III & IV) services under the State Government”- would be a sufficient indicator that these instructions are issued to regulate the appointment of physical handicap category and for their benefit. The reason for making reservation for physically handicap category is a statutory requirement arising out of the provisions of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Reference can also be made to paragraph 5 of the instructions which is as under:- “It has been considered essential to provide monitoring and control mechanism to watch the placement of the physically handicapped persons under these instructions. A cell already exists in the Welfare of Schedule Castes and Backward Classes Department to watch the progress of reservation of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes in the services under the State Government. It has been decided to entrust the duty of watching the recruitment of the physically handicapped persons in Class III and Class IV posts/services to the above Civil Writ Petition No.932 of 2011 -6- Mention Cell Detailed Instructions in this connection will be issued by the Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes Department. It is requested that information in this connection as and when required by that Department may be supplied to them.” The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab (Now Haryana) and others Versus Amar Singh and another, 1974 P.L.J. 74, while making observation about interpretation of Statutes has held that it is useful to read the Objects and Reasons relating to the clause of a Bill to illumine the idea of the law, not to control its amplitude. It is also observed that the Courts must bear in mind the activist, though inarticulate, major premise of statutory construction that the rule of law must run close to the rule of life and the Court must read into an enactment, language permitting, that meaning which promotes the benignant intent of the legislation in preference to the one which perverts the scheme of the statute on imputed legislative presumptions and assumed social values valid in a prior era. It is not without reason that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that an aware Court, informed of this adaptation in the rules of forensic interpretation, hesitates to nullify the plain object of a law unless compelled by its language. The basic judicial approach must be to discover this soul of the law and strive to harmonise the many limbs to subserve the pervasive spirit and advance the social project of the enactment. Seeing the instructions in the light of above golden rule of interpretation of statute, one can observe that objects and reasons behind the issuance of such instructions would have to be kept in view to give meaning to the Civil Writ Petition No.932 of 2011 -7- instructions and these certainly cannot be permitted to be read in a manner to take away the purpose of bestowing benefits to the Handicapped Category candidate, if he happens to be a candidate belonging to reserved category of SC/BC. The Commission is apparently misreading the instructions and this stand is unfair and unreasonable. The same cannot be accepted. The writ petitions deserve to be allowed. It is so ordered. Let the case of all the petitioners be considered in the category of Physically Handicap as per their merit. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the interviews are still to be held. The Commission shall, accordingly, consider the cases of the petitioners for the purpose of shortlisting them for interview if they are otherwise making a cut on the merit in physically handicapped category. August 19, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) monika JUDGE