2025:JHHC:26462 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1727 of 2016 -- Vijay Kumar Singh, Son of sri Bhikhi singh, Resident of Vill- Gohal, P.O.- Makatpur, P.S.-Jainagar, District- Koderma Jharkhand .....Petitioner versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Deputy Commissioner, Koderma P.O-Koderma, P.S- Koderma, District-Koderma Jharkhand 3. Deputy Collector, District Establishment, Koderma, P.O. & P.S.-Koderma, Dist.-Koderma, Jharkhand 4. Ranjeet Kumar S/O-Brajnandan Singh, Resident of- Vill&P.O-Marchai, P.S-Satganwa, District-Koderma, Jharkhand. 5. Anil Kumar S/0-Chandrika Sharma, Resident of village Sujanpur, P.O. & P.S.- Koderma, Distt. Koderma ......Respondents. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN -- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mritunjay Choudhary, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Ravi Kerketta, S.C.-VI M/s. Rituraj, Piyush Anand, A.C to S.C.-VI --- 15/21.08.2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the Petitioner for the following reliefs: For a directions upon the respondent authorities to consider the candidature of the petitioner for his appointment on the post of peon i.e. grade IV employment in koderma collectorate against sanctioned post meant for reserved category of Handicaps, as he fulfils all prescribed criteria still he has been denied the equal opportunity of and public employment in derogation to the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Art.16 of Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Petitioner is a physically handicapped but due to incorrect reservation given by the Respondents the petitioner could not be qualified. 2025:JHHC:26462 2 He further referred to the order passed by learned Division Bench of this Court in W.P(PIL) No. 7525 of 2013, dated 9th March, 2016, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held that the reservation under Section 33 is distinct from the scheme of reservation for SC/ST/OBC etc. in as much as, reservation in favour of persons with disabilities is horizontal and that precisely is the reason why vacancy occurring in the roster at roster point nos. 1 to 33, 34 to 37, 68 to 100 are available for appointment of suitable persons with disabilities. In any event all Establishments have to ensure reservation of minimum 3% for differently-abled persons as indicated in Section 33 of the Disabilities Act. 1995. For brevity, Paras 10, 11 12 & 13 are quoted hereunder: 10. The plea raised on behalf of the respondent-State of Jharkhand is mis-conceived. In the counter-affidavit the respondent-State of Jharkhand has taken a stand that Circular dated 07.11.2007 has been issued following Office Memorandum dated 29.12.2005 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training Government of India. Clause 15 of Office Memorandum dated 29.12.2005 provides that all establishments shall maintain separate 100 point Reservation Roster Register and each register shall have cycle of 100 points. It further provides that each cycle of 100 points shall have equally divided three blocks. 11. During the course of hearing Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized on Clause 15 (c) whereas, Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Additional Advocate-General referred to Clause 15 (d) to Clause 15 (i). Clause 15 of Office Memorandum dated 29.12.2005 reads as under: "15. EFFECTING RESERVATION -MAINTENANCE OF ROSTERS: (a) All establishments shall maintain separate 100 point reservation roster registers in the format given in Annexure Il for determining/effecting reservation for the disabled-one each for Group 'A' posts filled by direct recruitment, Group 'B' posts filled by direct recruitment, Group ‘C’ posts filled by direct recruitment, Group 'C posts filled by promotion, Group 'D' posts filled by direct recruitment and Group ‘D’ posts filled by promotion. (b) Each register shall have cycles of 100 points and each cycle of 100 points shall be divided into three blocks comprising the following points; 2025:JHHC:26462 3 1st Block-point No 1 to point No. 33 2nd Block-point No. 34 to point No. 66 3rd Block-point No. 67 to point No. 100 (c) Points 1, 34 and 67 of the roster shall be earmarked reserved for persons with disabilities-one point for each of the three categories of disabilities. The head of the establishment shall decide the categories of disabilities for which the points 1, 34 and 67 will be reserved keeping in view all relevant facts. (d) All the vacancies in Group C posts falling in direct recruitment quote arising in the establishment shall be entered in the relevant roster register. If the post falling at point no. 1 is not identified for the disabled or the head of the establishment considers it desirable not to fill it up by a disabled person or it is not possible to fill up that post by the disabled for any other reason, one of the vacancies falling at any of the points from 2 to 33 shall be treated as reserved for the disabled and filled as such. Likewise a vacancy falling at any of the points from 34 to 66 or from 67 to 100 shall be filled by the disabled. The purpose of keeping points 1, 34 and 67 as reserved is to fill up the first available suitable vacancy from 1 to 33, first available suitable vacancy from 34 to 66 and first available suitable vacancy from 67 to 100 by persons with disabilities (e) There is a possibility that none of the vacancies from 1 to 33 is suitable for any category of the disabled. In that case two vacancies from 34 to 66 shall be filled as reserved for persons with disabilities. If the vacancies from 34 to 66 are also not suitable for any category, three vacancies shall be filled as reserved from the third block containing points from 67 to 100. This means that if no vacancy can be reserved in a particular block, it shall be carried into the next block (f) After all the 100 points of the roster are covered, a fresh cycle of 100 points shall start. (g) If the number of vacancies in a year is such as to cover only one block or two, discretion as to which category of the disabled should be accommodated first shall vest in the head of the establishment, who shall decide on the basis of the nature of the post, the level of representation of the specific disabled category in the concerned grade/post etc. (h) A separate roster shall be maintained for group C posts filled by promotion and procedure as explained above shall be followed for giving reservation to persons with disabilities. Likewise two separate rosters shall be maintained for Group D posts, one for the posts filled by direct recruitment and another for posts filled by promotion. (i) Reservation in group A and group B posts is determined on the basis of vacancies in the identified posts only. Separate rosters for Group A posts and Group B posts in the establishment shall be maintained. In the rosters maintained for Group A and Group B posts, all vacancies of direct recruitment arising in identified posts shall be entered and reservation shall be effected the same way as explained above." 12. Much stress was laid by the learned counsel appearing for the parties to contend whether reservation for persons with disabilities can be made on the posts available from roster point no.11 to 33, 34 to 67 and 68 to 100 or only on roster points 1 or 33, 67 and 100. Clause 15 (c) of Office Memorandum dated 29.12.2005 provides that roster point nos. 1, 34 and 67 of the roster shall be earmarked for persons with disabilities and the Head 2025:JHHC:26462 4 of the Establishment has been vested with the power to decide categories of disabilities for which roster point nos. 1, 34 and 67 shall be reserved. Clause 15(d) however, carves out an exception to the obligation under Clause 15(c). A plain reading of Clause 15 (d) discloses that if the post falling at roster point no. 1 is not identified for the disabled persons or if it is not desirable to filling up post at roster point no. 1 by a disabled person, one of the vacancies falling at any of the roster points from 2 to 33 shall be treated as reserved for the disabled persons. In our opinion, keeping one vacancy reserved from roster point nos. 2 to 33 makes it abundantly clear that the person/persons with disabilities must be appointed on any one of the posts falling between roster point numbers 1 to 33 and it is not that one post at roster point number 33 alone can be kept reserved. If such an interpretation to Section 33 of the Disability Act, 1995, as canvassed on behalf of the respondent State of Jharkhand, is given while implementing the mandate under the Disability Act, 1995, the very object for which Disability Act, 1995 has been enacted, would stand frustrated, In "Union of India and Another Vs. National Federation of the Blind" (2013) 10 SCC 772, the plea taken by Union of India that computation of reservation has to be against the identified posts only, has been rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In paragraph no. 52 of "National Federation of the Blind” (supra) case, the Honb'le Supreme Court has held as under, 52. "Thus, after thoughtful consideration, we are of the view that the computation of reservation for persons with disabilities has to be computed in case of Group A, B, C and D posts in an identical manner viz "computing 3% reservation on total number of vacancies in the cadre strength" which is the intention of the legislature. Accordingly, certain clauses in the OM dated 29-12- 2005 which are contrary to the above reasoning are struck down and we direct the appropriate Government to issue new office memorandum(s) consistent with the decision rendered by this Court" 13. Considering the provisions under the Disabilities Act 1995 and the judgment in "National Federation of the Blind" (supra), it is hereby declared that reservation for differently-abled persons shall be decided on the basis of total cadre strength and, it would be implemented to total number of vacancies advertised. For example, if only 20 vacancies against total cadre strength of 100 posts have been advertised, one post may be kept reserved for any one of the three categories of disabilities mentioned in Section 33, if a post can be identified for extending benefit of reservation to such category of persons. In the event no post from roster point number 1 to 20 can be identified, one vacancy from roster point number 1 to 33 must be kept reserved for any one of the three categories of disabilities in tune with Section 33. However, at this point also if no post is identifiable for any one of the three categories of disabilities, from roster point number 33 to 67 two posts shall be kept reserved, and similarly, again reservation in roster point number 34 to 67 and roster point number 68 to 100 has to be implemented. The reservation under Section 33 is distinct from the scheme of reservation for SC/ST/OBC etc. in as much as, reservation in favour of persons with disabilities is horizontal and that precisely is the reason why vacancy occurring in the roster at roster point nos. 1 to 33, 34 to 37, 68 to 100 are available for appointment of suitable persons with disabilities. In any event all Establishments have to ensure reservation of minimum 3% for differently- abled persons as indicated in Section 33 of the Disabilities Act. 1995. 4. Relying upon the aforesaid order passed in Public Interest Litigation being W.P(PIL) No. 7525 of 2013, the Petitioner claims appointment on the post of Physically 2025:JHHC:26462 5 Handicapped because out of 83 candidates who have been appointed only two physically handicapped persons have been given reservation which is against the dictum of the order passed by learned Division Bench of this Court in PIL. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondents though could not dispute the aforesaid fact, but submits that the entire process of examination was over prior to filing the writ application and now after a lapse of 9 years even admitting that some discrepancy has been committed by the respondents, no benefit can be given to the petitioner. 6. Having regard to the factual scenario and also after going through the order passed in PIL; admittedly more than 9 years have lapsed after publication of final result, but it is also a fact that the method of reservation for physical handicapped candidates has not been adhered to by the respondents; as such only benefit which can be given to this petitioner at this stage is that if in future he applies for any examination conducted by the Respondent Authority, he would be given the age relaxation of maximum 3 years, over and above the notified limit of age. 7. With the aforesaid discussion, the instant writ application stands disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) jk