CWP No. 11467 of 2010 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CWP No. 11467 of 2010

Date of Decision:                                                   September 06, 2010

Disabled Persons Association ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents

Coram:                      Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mukul Mudgal, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari

****

Present:                      Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms.Madhu Dayal, Addl. AG, Punjab.

****

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?

Mukul Mudgal, CJ.

By this petition, which has been filed as a PIL, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of directions to the respondent-State to grant reservation to the extent of 3% to physically handicapped persons and appointment to public posts by way of direct recruitment as also promotion to categories and groups as per the provisions of The Persons with Disabilities(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full

Participation) Act, 1995.

CWP No. 11467 of 2010 2

It may be mentioned here that in CWP No. 5809 of 2010 decided on 24.05.2010 a Division Bench of this Court had allowed a similar petition in respect of promotion to Group 'C' and 'D' posts. It was also not disputed that 3 % reservation is already being given and direct recruitment in Groups 'A', 'B', 'C', and 'D' services as per letter dated 2.5.97(Annexure P-1). Thus the only dispute which remains is with regard to promotion to Group 'A' and 'B' posts.

In yet another case bearing CWP No. 12741 of 2009 decided on 18. 3.2010, Viklang Sangh Haryana v. State of Haryana and others, in relation to the State of Haryana this Court held as follows:-

“In view of the above position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Court must adopt a liberal interpretation which advances the achievement of the object of the Act. The interpretation which is sought to be suggested by the State for denying reservation of 3% in the promotional avenues would obviously defeat the object of the Act.”

In the written statement filed by the respondent-State of Punjab these facts have not been disputed. It is, however, pleaded that Government of India has not provided reservation by way of promotion in Group 'A' and 'B' services. In this context in the case of Viklang Sangh Haryana (supra) this Court had found as follows:-

“Even the Government of India, through the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training,New Delhi has reserved posts for the handicapped in departmental promotions to the extent of 3%. the information supplied vide letter dated December 05, 2007 to the petitioner by the aforesaid Ministry is to the following effect:-

“ (i) Reservation for SC candidates in departmental promotion quota is 15%

(ii)There is no reservation for OBC candidates in departmental promotion quota

(iii)Reservation for physically Handicapped quota is 3%

(iv) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x”

In this view of the matter the assertion of the State of Punjab that there is no reservation provided by the Government of India for promotion to Group 'A' and 'B' services cannot be accepted.

In the circumstances this writ petition is allowed and a direction is issued to the respondent-State of Punjab to keep 3% posts reserved for promotion for the disabled in Group 'A' and 'B' posts also and to issue necessary promotion orders not later than six months from today.

                                                              (MUKUL MUDGAL)

                                                                CHIEF JUSTICE

                                                                (AJAY TEWARI)

                                                                  JUDGE

September 06, 2010

sunita