Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 79592 (ALL)

KUMARI GEETA RAI v. STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

WRIA/10560/2025 · 2025-08-20

Ajit Kumar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 10560 of 2025 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Amitabh Trivedi and Sri A.K.Mishra, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel for the respondents. In compliance of earlier order of this Court, learned counsel for the respondent has obtained instructions in the matter and placed the same before this Court, which are taken on record. As per compliance affidavit, the categories indicating disabilities for a person to suffer from for the purposes of horizontal reservation, did not contain category of one leg deficiency. According to him as per advertisement, vide chart thereof, the detail of differently abled person, for the post of Mukhya Sewka were defined as Blind, Low Vision, Hard of Hearing, Dwarfism. Thus having Muscle Deficiency Syndrome which may affect adversely the locomotive activity of a person does not find place. He submits that petitioner had applied in OL category differently abled person. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute this fact, but he submits that locomotive deficiency would include deficiency of one leg if person suffers from it . I have carefully perused the table no. 2 given under the prescribing consequent order dated 14.8.2025 for deficiencies that differently abled persons should be suffering from and I find disability of locomotive activity is only attributable to muscle deficiency which is not one of these deficiencies given in table 2. Thus from the perusal of advertisement, it clearly transpires that no deficiency was prescribed as one leg for differently abled person to become entitled for horizontal reservation for the post of Mukhya Sewika. In view of above, writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. August 21, 2025 Sanjeev Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amitabh Trivedi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Siddharth Singhal (Ajit Kumar,J.) Kumari Geeta Rai .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Digitally signed by :- SANJEEV RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad