18.09.2026 Ct. No. 17 Sl. No. 9 RANJAN FMA 1924 of 2018 NEPAL LAHA VS. UTTAR BANGA KRISHI VISWAVIDYALAYA & ANR. Mr. Debashis Banerjee Mr. Rakesh Jana ......for the appellant This is an appeal directed against an order dated 05.07.2016 dismissing the writ petition. Briefly, the appellant who is a blind person claims a vested right for the post of a Junior Peon and contends that the post should have been reserved by the University. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that under section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1995, the Act provides for reservation of posts. The subject post which had been undertaken for recruitment should have been reserved for a person suffering from blindness or low vision in terms of section 33 of the Act. By the impugned order, the Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellant has participated in the written examination process for the post of Junior Peon. He was not successful in the examination. The post was not reserved for a person suffering from blindness or low vision. In such circumstances, in view of the failure of the appellant in the written examination, his candidature for the said post could 2 not be considered. Thus, there was no infirmity in the decision making process and hence no grounds for the Writ Court to interfere. We find no infirmity, no contravention of any law nor perversity in the impugned order which warrants any interference. The affidavit filed by the respondent University did not disclose that any person suffering from blindness or low vision had been given appointment for the subject post. The appellant had participated in the selection process and it is too late in the day for the appellant now to assail the same on the ground that it should have been a reserved post. There is nothing to suggest that the post of Junior Peon ought to be reserved for person suffering with blindness or low vision. The appellant has not been able to demonstrate any enforceable legal right in the subject post being meant for people suffering from blindness or low vision. In view of the above, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order, FMA 1924 of 2018 stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J.] [ATARUP BANERJEE, J.]