D.G.R. Patnaik, J.@mdashPetitioner in this writ application has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to
provide 3% reservation to physically handicapped persons in the matter of appointment of Plant Attended Trainee in pursuance of the
advertisement No. BSL/R/2007-05 and also to command upon the respondents to provide reservation to the petitioner under the category of
physically handicapped while declaring the final results for appointment of Plant Attendant Trainee.
2. Facts of the case in brief is that an advertisement was issued by the respondent BSL on 8.6.2007 inviting applications for appointment to the
post of Plant Attendant Trainee. Altogether, 300 posts of the Plant Attendant Trainee was to be filled up through open advertisement.
The advertisement mentioned about the reservation of SC/ST/OBC to the extent of 50% of the total vacancies, though no such reservation was
mentioned in respect of the physically handicapped persons.
The petitioner, who happens 10 be physically handicapped with locomotor disability, had also submitted his application along with his medical
certificate. Admit Card was issued to him for appearing at the written test which was scheduled to be held on 23.9.2007. After having appeared at
the written test, the petitioner was expecting that physically handicapped persons would be given reservation since it was a statutory obligation on
the part of the respondent authorities. However, on the publication of the results of the written test, the petitioner''s name did not figure in the list of
the successful candidates.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ application with his prayer, as mentioned above.
3. The main contention of the petitioner is that by failing to provide reservation to the physically handicapped persons, the respondents have tried
to defeat the mandate of law under the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation)
Act, 1995. It is further argued that the reservation to he physically handicapped persons has been given earlier in other plants of the SAIL including
Bhilai Steel Plant. Even under the respondent Company, there are several physically handicapped persons employed as Plant Attendant Trainee.
4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The stand taken by the respondent is that job of Plant Attendant Trainee
requires physical and manual labour in extremely physical tiring and hazardous conditions within the factory premises and it is directly related to the
production of the Company. It is thus essential that physically fit persons only are deployed in such job. Further stand is that the physically
handicapped persons are no doubt given appointment in the respondent company but on other jobs which are clerical in nature and which are
considered as light jobs in and around the township etc for which special recruitment drive is adopted. The claim for reservation for physically
handicapped persons in the particular job of the Plant Attendant Trainee, is therefore not tenable. It is further submitted that the examination results
in respect of the Plant Attendant Trainee was published on 23.9.2007. Those who had qualified in the written examination, were called for
interview between 5.12.2007 to 12.5.2007, where-after final result was published on 7.12.2008 and all the selected appointees have joined their
respective posts upon final publication of the results.
5. Admittedly, against 300 vacancies for the post of Plant Attendant Trainee, reservations up to 50% of the total vacancies were kept for the
SC/ST/OBC candidates, but no reservation was specified for the physically handicapped persons. It is not denied that the Establishment of the
respondents is not exempted from application of Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995.
6. The stand of the respondent Company is that though physically challenged / handicapped persons are given appointment under the respondent
Company on the other jobs which are clerical in nature and which are considered as light jobs in and around the township etc. for which special
recruitment drive is adopted by the respondent Company, the job of the Plant Attendant Trainee is hazardous which requires physical fitness of the
workers and the physically handicapped disabled persons are not found suitable for such jobs.
7. The above stand of the respondents has been challenged by the petitioner with his counter assertion that several physically handicapped persons
have been recruited and are presently working under the respondent Company as Plant Attendant Trainee. The designation of the Plant Attendant
Trainee was originally known as ''Khalashi''. Petitioner has also annexed a list of names of employees of the respondent Company who are
engaged in discharging the work as Plant Attendant Trainee though they are physically handicapped. He has also annexed a copy of the
advertisement issued by the Steel Authority of India Limited, Bhilai Steel Plant on 11.1.2008 inviting application for appointment for the post of
Attendant -cum-Junior Staff Assistant (Trainee) in which reservation for physically handicapped persons has been specified. These submissions of
the petitioner have not been denied or disputed by the respondents. In the light of such facts, the stand taken by the respondents that the physically
handicapped persons arc not suitable for the job of the Plant Attendant Trainee, does not appear to be convincing and reasonable. The
respondents were therefore certainly bound to reserve the requisite number of posts for the physically handicapped persons under the provisions of
the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
8. It however appears that the process of recruitment has already been completed and 300 vacancies have been filled up and selected candidates
have already joined their respective posts. At this stage, after the vacancies have already been filled up, it would not be appropriate to undo what
has already been done and put the appointment of the candidates already appointed, at stake.
9. Under such circumstances, in case any vacancy for the general category candidates in which the petitioner had applied, remain vacant on
account of non-joining of any selected candidate, the respondent shall consider the case of the petitioner for his appointment, regard being had to
the merit of the petitioner''s performance in the written test.
With the above observation, this writ application is disposed of.
.jpg)