2025:CGHC:10026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 201 of 2021 1 - Abhishek Kumar Baranwal S/o Triloknath Baranwal Aged About 24 Years R/o Thanora, Tahsil- Keskal, Distt.- Kondagaon (Chhattisgarh), District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Animal Husbandry, Veterinary Services And Dairy Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Office Of Directorate Animal Husbandry And Veterinary Services Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Deputy Director Office Of Deputy Director Veterinary Health Services Kondagaon, Distt.- Kondagaon (Chhattisgarh), District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Collector Office Of Collector Kondagaon, Distt.- Kondagaon (Chhattisgarh), District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate For State : Mr. Topilal Bhareth, Panel Lawyer KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Digitally signed by KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Date: 2025.03.25 10:52:01 +0530 Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 28.02.2025 1. The petitioner has filed present writ petition assailing the advertisement dated 27.11.2020 and various other advertisements issued at Kondagaon District for contractual appointment whereby reservation to the persons with disability for recruitment to the post of Assistant Veterinary Field Officer has not been given. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that vide advertisement dated 27.11.2020, total 20 posts of Assistant Veterinary Filed Officer have been advertised, but not a single post has been reserved for P.W.D. category, therefore, the same is contrary to the reservation policy of the State Government and deserves to be quashed. To substantiate his submission he would refer to Rule 11(8) of the Chhattisgarh Information Commission (Non-Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2009. This rule is applicable to the persons who at the time of commencement of these rules are holding substantive or officiating posts specified in Schedule-I. Schedule-I prescribes various posts as Assistant Statistical Officer, Marketing Inspector, Assistant Veterinary Field Officer, Projector Operator, SR. Plant Operator, Progress Assistant/Comp, Enumerator, JR. Plant Operator, Lab Technician, Field Asstt., Dressor Gr – 1 and Driver. Page 3 of 4 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that reservation on the posts is made looking to the nature of work and difficulties being faced by a Government employee. Since the post of Assistant Veterinary Field Officer is not suitable for persons with disability though this post has been classified in Schedule-I, therefore, the action taken by the State is legal and justified and not violation of the Rules. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 5. From the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, the point emerged for determination by this Court is whether action of the State in not providing reservation for persons with disability is legal, justified and in accordance with Rules or not? 6. For determination of the point, relevant provisions of Rules of 2009 necessary for adjudication of this case is extracted below:- 11.8 There shall be reserved post for disabled candidates in accordance with the direction of the General Adminstration Department. 7. From perusal of the Rules which has binding effect, it is quite vivid that the Rules provides for reservation of the post under P.W.D. category. But this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that post is reserved looking to the difficulties being faced by the employee in discharging the duties. In the present case the petitioner who is physically disabled person and for discharging duties attached to the post of Assistant Vetenirary Field Officer one has to take frequent move which may not be suitable looking to the medical condition of the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents have committed illegality in not providing reservation for candidates with physical disability. 8. Considering this aspect of the matter, no direction can be issued the respondent-State to provide reservation for physical disable persons but it is directed that they should strictly comply Rule 11(8) of the Rules of 2009 in the ongoing recruitment process issued in pursuance of advertisement dated 27.11.2020 for the posts prescribed in Schedule-I of the Rules except the post of Assistant Veterinary Filed Officer. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is finally disposed off. Sd- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Deshmukh