IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 1317 of 2008 Reserved on: 2.12.2010 Date of Decision: 8.12.2010 Kailash Dutt Kaushik …Petitioner. Versus. HPSEB and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the petitioner: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Trilok Jamwal, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner by means of this petition has prayed that the respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment against the left out vacancies meant for the disabled. 2. During the course of this petition, the petitioner has placed certain material on record and challenged the selection of certain persons against the three percent quota meant for persons with disabilities. The Electricity-Board decided to fill up the posts of Junior Engineers and to fill in the backlog, in terms of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Applications were invited for filling up posts of junior 2 engineer from the persons with disabilities. 26 posts were reserved for the disabled. These posts were further divided amongst physically impaired, hearing impaired and orthopedically impaired persons. The petitioner is orthopedically handicapped person and for this category five seats were reserved for general category and three for the scheduled castes candidates. The petitioner was also considered for appointment to the said post but has not been selected. It was argued that the selection process was not proper and the same may be quashed. 3. I had called for the records of the case and I find that the selection committee has followed a very rational system. Out of total of 100 marks, 40 marks were kept for the score received by the candidate in the diploma. Thus, if a person had 50% marks he would get 20 marks out of 40 under this head. The format also provides that in case a candidate has higher qualification of B.Tech/BE he would be awarded another 10 marks. For the percentage of disability 15 marks were allotted. A person suffering with disability of 60% and above would get 15 marks whereas a candidate suffering with percentage of disability between 40 to 60% would get 10 marks. 10 marks were allotted for batch seniority. Thus a person who was of 2007 batch would get one mark and a person of 1997 would get 10 marks and above. For further higher qualification five marks were 3 provided. 5 marks were allocated for knowledge of customs & culture of Himachal Pradesh and five marks for general awareness and 10 marks for technical knowledge and analytical ability and presentation. Therefore, 20 marks out of 100 which had been divided under three sub-heads were to be granted on the basis of viva voce and the remaining 80 marks were to be given on an objective basis leaving no room for discrimination. 4. In my view the respondents have framed a very well thought out selection module or process and there is no scope of arbitrariness in the same. I have personally gone through the records and I find that the persons selected all ranked higher than the petitioner. The Board has given reasonable weightage to the marks, higher qualifications, batch wise seniority, etc and after taking into consideration all these factors has made the selection. On perusal of the record, I find no error in the selection process. Therefore, there is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly rejected. 8th December, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.