Sharma v. District Judge, Bulandshahr

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: A.K. Mathur, J.
Markandey Katju, J.
Judgment Date: 2007-10-31
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed. The impugned judgment of the Allahabad High Court (Division Bench) is set aside. The appellant is directed to be appointed on a Class-III post in Bulandshahr Judgeship forthwith, regularized, and given all consequential benefits in light of the 2% reservation for physically handicapped persons as per the GO dated 26.08.1993.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; appointment and regularization ordered for the appellant

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sharma

Respondents

District Judge, Bulandshahr
Anr.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Gaurav Jain
• Abha Jain

Counsels for Respondents

• Ashok K. Srivastava

Case Synopsis & Summary

Sharma v. District Judge, Bulandshahr is a Supreme Court decision delivered on October 31, 2007, in Civil Appeal No. 6168 of 2001, arising from a writ petition filed by a visually impaired candidate who had appeared for recruitment tests for Class-III posts in Bulandshahr District, Uttar Pradesh. The appellant, a blind man, was not selected in 1992, prompting a writ petition that succeeded before a single judge of the Allahabad High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court then set aside that order, leading to this appeal before the Supreme Court. The core issue revolves around the interpretation of a Government Order dated 26 August 1993 providing for a 2% reservation for physically handicapped persons in direct recruitment across all government services. The appellant’s argument rests on the literal computation: there were 30 posts, 2% of which equals 0.6; since 0.6 is more than half, it must be rounded to one post, and because there was no other physically handicapped applicant, the appellant was entitled to the reserved post. The Court held that the reservation must prevail and that the appellant be appointed to a Class-III post accordingly. The appellant is already occupying the post under an interim order, and the Court directed regularization and all consequential benefits. The appeal was allowed, and the Division Bench’s judgment was set aside.

Provisions of Law Cited

G.O. dated 26.08.1993 reserving 2% posts for physically handicapped persons for direct recruitment in all groups of Government services.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant submitted that the Government Order dated 26 August 1993 mandates a 2% reservation for physically handicapped persons across all government services. With 30 posts in the recruitment, 2% equals 0.6, which rounds to one post. Since no other physically handicapped candidate applied, the appellant, being blind, was entitled to the reserved post and should be appointed and regularized. The interim order already placed him in position; therefore, he sought regularization and full consequential benefits, which should flow from the reservation policy.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the division of posts must be interpreted strictly and that a mere rounding of 0.6 to a post should not automatically allocate a reserved slot without an eligible candidate; reliance on the GO required a proper allocation only if a qualifying physically handicapped candidate exists. They argued to uphold the Division Bench’s approach (which negated the single judge’s order) and to deny automatic reservation where a suitable candidate could not be identified, thereby justifying the status quo pending a broader policy interpretation.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A " ## BHUDEVS~ ## _V._ ## DISTRICT Jl.JOGE, BULANOSiiAHR AND ANR. ## OCTOBER 31, 2007 > [A.K. . MATHl.J-Ri\ND 1'1ARKANPEY KAT JU, JJ.J . ~A S@rvic~ _Lqw-:-:Reservatiqn-Far Physically handicapped persons-Selection-For Class III posts-2% posts reserved for_ c _physically handicappgd-=Single Physically handiq9.p.v.e,d person applied and appeared in_ rg~ruitmgnt !~~(,.,.-lp,et;#edappointment-lfeld: - _The applicant was_ ~~titled _to be appointed_ ag_fl.~n~{ ~'1f· ~r:s::;·ved po~·t, _being the only candidate._ · D E ~9 p9,sfs wer~ ?PV~rti~~d for Class III Posts in Bulandshahr Judg@§llip _m_ V:ri: Ap.p~•l~nt (a blind man) appeared in recruitment test, btJt W3S not selected. He filed Writ Petition. Single Judge of High.Court directed his appointment, but the same was set aside by Division Bench of High Court. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court 1' HELD: By G.O. dated 26.08.1993 U.P. Government has reserved 2% posts for physically handicapped persons for direct recruitment in all groups of Government services. The physically handicapped persons are thos~ whg 3f~ blind, deaf and dumb and F otherwise handicapped. There were altogether 30 posts for which the selection was held. 2 per cent of30 is 0.6. Since 0.6 is more than half it is rounded off and held that one out of the 30 posts is reserved for physically handicapped persons. Since there was no other physically handicapped per~1m_ wtio ~pplied, the appellant was G ~ntitled to the post reserv'ed for physically handicapped persons. The ;tppellant is already working on the post in view of the interim order of this Court. Hence he shall be regularized. [Paras 3 and 5) [731-E, F, G; 732-A) 730 H ' _j_ "''TT inJ::v SHARMA _v._ BISTRJCT JUDGE, BULANQ~HAHR 73 l tltlUi..n._,,__ -·'"A'T'TTTJl ·- [MARKANUt Y l\1-\.1 Ju,,,. 1 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6168 of A 2001. From the final Judgment and Order dated 23,5,2001 _of_ the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 445 of200I. Gaurav Jain and Abha Jain for the Appellant. B Ashok K. Srivastava for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by **MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.** 1. This appeal has been filed ag~inst the impugned judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 23.05.2001 in Special Appeal No. 445 of 2001. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. c; 2. The appellant is a blind man. He appeared in the recruitment test held in the year 1992 for selecting candidates for Class-III Posts in D Bulandshahr Judgeship in U.P. However, he was riot selected and hence he filed a writ petition which was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court by his judgment dated 25.09.1997. Against that judgment the State Government filed a letters patent appeal which has been allowed by the impugned judgment by the Division Bench. Hence E this appeal. 3. The appellant has relied on G.O. dated 26.08.1993 which is Annexure P-I to this appeal. That G.O. states that the U.P. Government has reserved 2 per cent posts for physically handicapped persons for direct F recruitment' in all groups of Government services. The physically handicapped persons are those who are blind, deaf and dumb and otherw·ise handicapped. There were altogether 30 posts for which the selection was held. 2 per cent of 30 is 0.6. Since 0.6 is more than half we round it off and hold that one out of the 30 posts is reserved for G physically handicapped persons. Since there was no other physically handicapped person who applied, in our opinion, the appellant was entitled ' to the post reserved for physically handicapped persons. 4. In this v.iew of the matter, the appeal is allowed, the impugned H 1 \ SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R. 732 A judgment of the Division Bench is set aside and it is directed that the appellant be appointed on a Class-III Post in Bulandshahr Judgeship forthwith. 5. We are infonned that the appellant is already working on the post in view of the interim order of this Court. J:Ience he shall be regularized B and allowed to continue working as a regular Class-III employee and shall be given all the consequential bene~~· K.K.T. Appeal allowed. "' _)..,__ _':_ I ' _J_ ;; ) l p ,,, I