1 2025:CGHC:6935 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 783 of 2017 1 - Ashok Kumar Dewangan S/o Shri Shyam Lal Dewangan, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Birra, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Kuldeep Dewangan, Through The Selection Committee Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Manharan Lal, Through The Selection Committee Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Radheshyam Verma, Through The Selection Committee Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Anadi Sharma, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No.2 : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondents No.3 to 5: None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06.02.2025 Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside/quash the impugned Main-List (Annexure-P/1) issued by the respondent Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Raipur with respect of recruitment on the post of Assistant Project Officer; 10.2 this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Raipur to consider the candidature of the petitioner for recruitment on the post of Assistant Project Officer and issue a fresh Main-List in accordance with The Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016 granting him the benefit of reservation for eyesight candidate. 10.3 this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other order/ direction/ relief to petitioner in the nature of mandamus which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & proper in the facts & circumstances of the case, including awarding of costs to him.” 2. The facts of the present case are that the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission issued an advertisement on 28.11.2015 for 352 posts under various categories, including 41 posts of Assistant Project Officer. Out of 41 posts, 3 posts were reserved for persons with disabilities, specifically OA (One Arm), OL (One Leg), LV (Lower Vision) and HH (Hearing Handicapped). The petitioner, suffering from 40% disability in Lower Vision, applied for the post of Assistant Project Officer. The petitioner participated in the examination, and the select list was published, where the petitioner secured 847th rank in the Lower Vision category. However, respondents No.3 to 5 namely, Kuldeep Dewangan, Manharan Lal and Radheshyam Verma, who were suffering from disability in One 3 Leg only got their position in the merit list and the name of the petitioner was not considered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that according to the circular issued by the General Administration Department, 6% posts shall be reserved for persons with disabilities, with 2% reserved for Lower Vision, 2 % for Hearing Impairment, and 2% for One Leg or One Arm. He would contend that the respondents ought to have reserved one post for a person with Lower Vision whereas all posts were allotted to the persons with One Leg. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Ramakant Singh Chandel and Ors. vs. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Raipur, WP(S) No.1137 of 2019, vide order dated 26.4.2019. 4. On the other hand, learned counsels for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. They would submit that according to the rules, one post should have been reserved for a person with Lower Vision. They would contend that the appointment order was issued on 28.2.2017, and three candidates were appointed. They would further contend that out of three candidates, only one namely, Manharan Lal joined the services. Subsequently, an interim order was passed on 10.5.2017. They would also contend that two posts for the physically handicapped category remained vacant. They would argue that a roster system was involved in bringing proper representation to persons with disabilities and other reserved categories. In the 100-point roster, the name of the petitioner is listed at Sr. No.847. The respondents concede to the fact that a -4- person with low vision is entitled to get an appointment on one post reserved for the PH category. It is further argued that the respondents shall provide an appointment with Lower Vision pursuant to the advertisement issued on 28.11.2015. They would also argue that according to the roster when the turn of the petitioner would come, the State shall consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment against his specific category i.e. Lower Vision. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 6. Taking into consideration the submissions made by counsels appearing for the respondents, the petition is disposed of as counsels appearing for the respondents have stated that the appointment to a person with Lower Vision shall be provided against the vacant post of Assistant Project Officer. Since nothing remains for adjudication, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of a person with Lower Vision for appointment to the post of Assistant Project Officer pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.11.2015. The respondents are also directed to consider the claim of the petitioner when his turn comes. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s), the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi