He had further stated that at the time of interview, he had produced the necessary documents in support of his claim.
It appears that respondent No.
3 issued an advertisement on 10th August, 2006 bearing advertisement No.6/2006, announcing its intention to hold the preliminary examination of the Combined Competitive Examination, 2006 for screening candidates for the Main Examination for recruitment to various posts educated in the advertisement.
It was further the case of the respondent No.
The Last date for submission of the applications under the companyrigendum was 6th July, 2007.
Respondent No.
950 of 2010 and impugned judgment and order dated 2nd July, 2010 in Writ Petition C No.3382 of 2010 passed by the High Court of Guwahati, allowing the writ petitions filed by the respondent No.1 whereby Assam Public Service Commission hereinafter referred to as respondent No.
The preliminary examination was held on 23rd September, 2007.
It would be relevant to numberice here that the select list dated 15th June, 2009 was challenged in Writ Petition No.
3 was directed to examine the entitlement 1 of respondent No.1 by taking into account the identity card produced by him.
In its meeting dated 8th January, 2010, respondent No.3 had resolved that respondent No.
From the record, it was found that prior to Shri S. Khans case, one Smt.
In companypliance with the orders of the High Court dated 13th March, 2007, respondent No.
In this advertisement, although, posts had been reserved for various categories such as OBC MOBC, SC, ST P and ST H , but there was numberreservation in favour of the disabled candidates as required under the Persons with Disabilities Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation, Act,1995.
On the basis of this certificate, respondent No.1 was issued an identity card by the District Social Welfare Officer, Dhubri on 18th February, 2004 which specified his disability to be Locomotor Disability to the extent of 50.
1 that he had produced the necessary documents in support of his claim of Locomotor Disability to the extent of 50 along with the other certificates and testimonials at the time of interview.
In the companynter affidavit filed to this writ petition, respondent No.3 specifically stated that the documents had 10 number been submitted by the respondent No.
1 for selection for appointment against the solitary post earmarked for physically handicapped candidates on the ground that the 12 identity card, which was required to be submitted by respondent No.
On receipt of the companymunication dated 4th December, 2009, respondent No.1 through his letter dated 10th December, 2008 addressed to the Deputy Secretary of the Commission reiterated that the documents had already been submitted and verified by the Commission.
In the aforesaid writ petition, it was stated that in the application, respondent No.1 had specifically mentioned against Column No.
In the representation, respondent No.1 had specifically stated that he had submitted the necessary supporting documents along with the application form.
It was further his claim in the writ petition that he had qualified in the main examination and was called for interview by call letter dated 1st December, 2008.
It was the case of respondent No.1 that he had produced the necessary documents in support of his claim 6 of Locomotor Disability to the extent of 50, along with the other certificates and testimonials at the time of interview.
The respondent No.3 also looked into the question whether any other candidate, who had number furnished any essential document with the application or at the time of interview but submitted them after the interview were accepted or number.
The High Court by an interim order directed respondent No.3 number to companyduct any examination during the pendency of the petition.
1 was accordingly asked to submit the same to the Commission as early as possible on receipt of the companymunication dated 4th December, 2009.
The action of the respondent No.3 in rejecting the candidature in the resolutions dated 8th January, 2010 and 21st May, 2010 were rightly quashed by the High Court.
1 to be suffering from Locomotor Disability was number submitted alongwith the application form for the Main examination, though the same was a companypulsory document.
1 for final selection as a 11 physically handicapped Locomotor Disability candidate.
In the letter dated 10th December, 2009, respondent No.
1 was allowed.
It was in fact 19 the appellant, who had been selected for appointment.
From the information supplied to him, respondent No.
1, the identity card was submitted for the first time with the letter dated 10th December, 2009 much after the examination process was over.
Respondent No.
The aforesaid writ petition has been allowed by the High Court with observations that respondent No.3 was under a legal obligation to examine the petitioners entitlement for selection by taking into account his identity card.
The Commission, respondent No.
This was vital to support the claim of respondent No.1 to be companysidered for the post reserved for the candidates having Locomotor Disability.
3 issued a companyrigendum on 5th June, 2007 reserving three per cent vacancies for Physically Handicapped persons, in terms of Persons with Disabilities Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation, Act,1995.
2755 of 2009 and other companynected cases.
67 of 2010 seeking a direction to include his name in the fresh list to be issued by the respondent No.3, Commission.
3382 of 2010 challenging the minutes dated 21st May, 2010 and the companymunication dated 31st May, 2010.
The reservation in the category of Locomotor Disability was number the issue before the Court 9 in the aforesaid writ petition.
Upon a thorough scrutiny and re examination of the facts and the material on record, the claim of respondent No.
13 These directions are challenged by the appellant in these appeals.
But her claim for treating herself as a S.C. candidate was number entertained on the grounds that she applied as a General candidate and the caste certificate in support of her claim as S.C. candidate was furnished long after companypletion of examination process.Since there was numberrequirement for submission of any details with regard to any disability, he had number submitted any disability certificate.
At this stage, respondent No.
1 also mentioned that as directed by the Deputy Secretary of the Commission, an attested companyy of the ID card issued to him by the District Social Welfare Officer, Dhubri is being forwarded.
The respondent No.1 had, therefore, submitted a representation on 14th September, 2009 to respondent No.
1 within the prescribed time.
The High Court granted an ex parte order on 11th February, 2010 directing respondent No.3 number to issue the appointment posting orders to the appellant.
He had submitted a certificate issued by the District Medical Board, Dhubri dated 21st January, 2004 in support of his claim to be a physically handicapped person along with the identity card issued by the District Social Welfare officer.
The last date for the receipt of the companypleted application forms was fixed as 11th September, 2006.
These appeals are directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 4th March, 2010 in Writ Petition C No.
The procedural anomaly related to women candidates.
Respondent No.1 had applied in response to the advertisement dated 10th August, 2006.
1 that the appellant had scored 695 marks whereas respondent No.1 had scored 817 marks in the examination.
Respondent No.
1 was again number included in the list of candidates selected for the appointment.
1 did number submit the identity card along with the form.
Respondent No.1 made an application under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 before the appropriate authority seeking the details of the marks scored by him as well as the details of the marks obtained by other physically handicapped candidates called for the interview.
Thereafter, on 5th February, 2010, the Commission published a revised list, wherein name of respondent No.
It was also the case of the respondent No.
Therefore, his candidature was rejected for number fulfillment of an essential companydition.
Subsequently, respondent No.
Respondent No.
950 of 2010.
The name of respondent No.1 did number appear in the said list.
Therefore, on 4th December, 2009, the Deputy Secretary of the Commission had informed respondent No.
According to respondent No.
However, he again sent an attested companyy of the identity card issued to him by the District Social Welfare Officer, Dhubri.
By order dated 13th March, 2007, the High Court directed respondent No.3 to make a fresh advertisement on the basis of the requisitions to be received from the Government of Assam respondent No.2 incorporating reservation of 3 for persons with disabilities.
Being satisfied Respondent No.3 had permitted him to appear in the Main examination.
1 had to file W.P. C No.
The documents were also enclosed with the representation dated 14th September, 2009.
3, seeking to question the selection of the appellant, who had scored lesser marks.
A direction was issued to respondent No.3 to reconsider the matter afresh based on the identity card submitted on 10th December, 2009.
Having successfully companypleted the written examination, both the candidates, i.e., appellant and respondent No.1, were called for interview on 1st December, 2008.
950 of 2010 as 1 1992 2 SCC 206 18 respondent No.3 again illegally rejected his candidatures.
On 14th March, 2010, the writ petition filed by respondent No.
Respondent No.1 had been certified by the District Medical Board, Dhubri, to be physically disabled to the extent of 50 on 21st January, 2004.
number furnished with the application or at the time of interview but submitted after interview was accepted or number.
However, pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court in its order dated 4th March, 2010, respondent No.3 in its meeting held on 21st May, 2010 again thoroughly examined the matter relating to the entitlement of respondent No.
1 was number accepted.
The said documents were verified at the time of interview on 11th December, 2008.
The name of appellant was duly reiterated as the candidate selected for appointment.
2 Consequently, a Public Interest Litigation being P.I.L. No.61/2006 was filed in the High Court by Order dated 13th March, 2007.
11 of the application form that he suffers from Locomotor Disability upto 50.
The writ petition was filed on 8th February, 2010.
1 came to know that he had scored 817 marks, whereas the appellant had scored 695 marks.
Leave granted.
1 thereafter made a representation dated 14th September, 2009 addressed to the Chairman of respondent No.3 as well as the Secretary of the Commission making a grievance that his candidature had been 7 arbitrarily rejected, even though, he had scored more marks than appellant in the examination.
1 replied vide his letter 8 dated 10th December, 2009 addressed to the Deputy Secretary of the Commission, stating that all necessary documents showing that he is a physically handicapped person suffering from Locomotor Disability were submitted alongwith the application form of the Main examination.
1 also reiterated his claim that all documents were verified by the Commission at the time of interview on 1st December, 2008.
1, therefore, challenged the select list by Writ Petition No.
A companymunication to that effect was sent to the appellant as well as respondent No.
3, published the list of selected candidates on 15th June, 2009.
The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by the High Court by remitting the matter back to respondent No.3 to take a fresh decision and publish a revised list.
1 had also reiterated that his claim for being companysidered in the Locomotor Disability category, was duly supported by the necessary documents, i.e., certificate issued by the District Medical Board, Dhubri dated 21st January, 2004 and the identity card issued by the District Social Welfare Officer.
We may numberice the bare essential facts necessary for the determination of the companytroversy involved in these appeals .
1 filed Writ Petition No.
1 on 31st May, 2010.
In spite of having scored higher marks, he was illegally and arbitrarily number selected.
However, when the select list was published on 15th June, 2009, the name of respondent No.1 was number included therein.
Anima Baishya had submitted an application before the Chairperson on 26.2.2009 claiming herself to be a S.C. candidate for the first time.
The respondent No.
1 filed Writ Petition No.
1, on 4th December, 2009, the Deputy Secretary of the Commission respondent No.3 had informed him that the identity card showing respondent No.
In fact, the appellant was shown to have been selected for appointment in the Assam Public Service Commission as a physically handicapped candidate.
He, therefore, challenged the selection of the appellant.
