LPA No.1798 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 1798 of 2010 Date of decision 24 .5 .2011 Sandeepika Malhotra . Appellant Versus . S.C.Agrawal and others .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Naresh Ghai , Advocate for the appellant Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, Addl. AG for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against order dated 10.9.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in COCP No. 1778 of 2010 holding that no vacancy for the physically handicapped category of blind on the post of Lecturer was available and therefore the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court are deemed to be complied with. The learned Single Judge further held that it is not possible in contempt proceedings to examine the question whether the posts are available or not. 2. Mr. Naresh Ghai, learned counsel for the appellant has asserted that vacancies on the post of Lecturer after 7.2.1996 have not been correctly disclosed by the respondent who is Chief Secretary of the State of Punjab. According to the learned counsel the statute known as the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 has come into force on 7.2.1996 and as LPA No.1798 of 2010 2 per Section 33 of the Act, one percent reservation meant for the category of blinds i.e. blindness or low vision is required to be made in every establishment. In order to seek clarification on the aforesaid issue, we directed the Chief Secretary of the respondent-State of Punjab to file an affidavit. Accordingly an affidavit has been filed in the Court today. In para 2 of the affidavit it has been asserted that since 7.2.1996 a total number of 204 college lecturers have been recruited and at the rate of one percent reservation for the blinds, two vacancies fell to their share. It has also been asserted that against those two vacancies meant for the category of blinds, three blind persons have already been recruited in the cadre of College Lecturer. The Chief Secretary has further pointed out that the discrepancy in the affidavit dated 15.3.2002 has not gone undetected and a direction has been issued to the Principal Secretary, Higher Education to fix the responsibility of the officer/official who had given incorrect information when the quota for disability was determined on 3.3.2002. It has, therefore, been pointed out that no vacancy under the category of blind is available and therefore the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge deserves to be accepted. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and in view of the affidavit dated 10.5.2011 filed by Shri S.C.Agrawal, Chief Secretary of the respondent- State, no doubt is left that there is no vacancy on the post of Lecturer which may be offered to a disabled person like the petitioner. The quota appears to be already over-subscribed by one post and therefore no case is made out for interference of this Court. LPA No.1798 of 2010 3 4. As a sequel to the above discussion, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Gurdev Singh) 24.5.2011 Judge okg