IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.8948 of 2023 Decided on: 27th March, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Amit Kumar ....Petitioner Versus HRTC and Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisth, Advocate Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard at this stage. 2. Facts Respondent-Corporation issued an advertisement in August 2017 for filling up several posts of Transport Multi- Purpose Assistants (TMPA). No post was advertised in that advertisement against handicapped quota. 2(i) Last date to furnish online applications, in terms of the advertisement, was 31.08.2017. The written test was 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - fixed for 17.09.2017. 2(ii) Petitioner applied for the aforesaid post reserved for Scheduled Tribe Category. He appeared as such in the written test conducted on 17.09.2017 under the given roll number. Based upon his over-all performance and merit position, he was placed in the General Category (Un- reserved). 2(iii) The petitioner instituted Original Application No. 4691 of 2018 pointing out the above facts and prayed for direction to the respondents to issue him appointment letter. By virtue of interim order dated 28.08.2018, respondents were directed to issue him appointment letter as TMPA. 2(iv) The aforesaid interim order was assailed by the respondents by instituting CWP No. 3044 of 2018. The writ petition was withdrawn on 01.01.2019. The petitioner was consequently appointed on contract basis as TMPA on 11.02.2019. His services were later on regularized w.e.f. 30.09.2021. 2(v) Present Grievance Petitioner has instituted this writ petition with the grievance that he is a disabled person suffering from 45% locomotor disability. In view of the provisions of Rights of - 3 - Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 read with the law laid down in Umesh Jaswal Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2 and Nitin Kumar Vs. State & Anr3, the services of the petitioners of the petitioner are required to be regularized from his initial date of appointment as the petitioner falls under the category of Persons with Disabilities. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4. I am not impressed with the contentions of the petitioner. Admittedly, petitioner participated in the selection process wherein no posts were advertised for the persons with disabilities. Petitioner was recruited on the basis of marks obtained by him in the selection process in an open competition. The respondents have pleaded in their reply that persons with disabilities were not debarred from competing for the post in the open competition and it is for this reason, the petitioner was selected as TMPA on 11.02.2019 in the open competition. Therefore, he is entitled to be regularized at par with other candidates who were appointed after competing in the same selection process in the same manner. 2 CWP No. 5090 of 2022, decided alongwith connected matters on 19.12.2022 3 CWPOA No.1-66 of 2019 , decided on 22.08.2022 - 4 - Petitioner had participated in the selection process as per the terms & conditions stipulated therein. At this stage, petitioner cannot be heard to complain that he is required to be adjusted against the post meant for the physically handicapped category and to be regularized as such accordingly, when admittedly such post was never advertised in the recruitment process. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are applicable in those cases where persons with disabilities have been recruited against the posts advertised/meant for persons with disabilities. These decisions are not applicable to the given factual position of the case, where the petitioner was recruited in a selection process in an open competition against the General Category (Unreserved) post and where no post for person with disabilities had been advertised. Consequently, I find no merit in the present writ petition. The same is accordingly, dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge March 27, 2025 R.Atal - 5 -