Present: Mr. Padamkant Dwivedi Advocate for Vs. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1154532
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJul-04-2014
AppellantPresent: Mr. Padamkant Dwivedi Advocate for
Excerpt:
cwp no.5202 of 2012 -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh cwp no.5202 of 2012 date of decision:- 04.07.2014. naresh kumar ......petitioner versus pspcl , patiala and another .......respondents coram: hon'ble mrs.justice sabina present: mr.padamkant dwivedi, advocate for the petitioner. mr.vikas chatrath, advocate for the respondents. **** sabina, j. petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction to the respondents to consider him for appointment to the post of lineman under the physically handicapped category on contract basis in pursuance to the advertisement annexure p-5. case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was a physically handicapped person with 44% disability. five thousand posts of lineman had been advertised by the respondents. out of the said posts, 128 posts were reserved for the candidates under the physically handicapped category. petitioner applied for the said post under the reserved category of physically handicapped. sandeep sethi 2014.07.09 09:35 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document cwp no.5202 of 2012 -2- however, petitioner had not been issued the appointment letter. hence, the present writ petition. learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was suffering 44% physical disability due to shortening of left leg by two inches with stiffness of ankle joint. petitioner was capable of performing the duties of lineman and the respondents were liable to be directed to appoint the petitioner as a lineman. learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that the petitioner was unable to perform the duties attached to the post of lineman. para two of the written statement on merits reads as under:- “that the contents of para no.2 are denied for want of knowledge regarding the financial status of the petitioner. it is denied that the petitioner fulfilled the qualifications for the post of lineman as is actually projected in the petition wherein he wants his claim to be considered under the physically handicapped quota. it is relevant to mention herein that the post of the lineman is such which requires lot of physical labour including climbing on the poles to maintain the un-interrupted supply of power etc.in the air since the disability on the part of leg, ankle etc.can become an impediment in performing work efficiently and there is also risk to the sandeep sethi 2014.07.09 09:35 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document cwp no.5202 of 2012 -3- said employee, in case he is appointed on the same, whereas disability of partial deafness etc.would not affect the efficiency to that level and would also help in promoting and achieving the objects as laid down in the constitution of india. thus, there is no occasion for the petitioner of feeling aggrieved.”. thus, in the present case, petitioner was not appointed as a linemen as he was unable to perform the duties of a lineman due to disability suffered by him. petitioner due to his disability would not be able to perform his duties efficiently as the post required lot of physical labour and there would be risk to him also. in these circumstances, no ground for interference is made out. dismissed. (sabina) judge july 04, 2014. sandeep sethi sandeep sethi 2014.07.09 09:35 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Judgment:

CWP No.5202 of 2012 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.5202 of 2012 Date of decision:- 04.07.2014.

Naresh Kumar ......Petitioner Versus PSPCL , Patiala and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Padamkant Dwivedi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for the respondents.

**** SABINA, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction to the respondents to consider him for appointment to the post of Lineman under the Physically Handicapped category on contract basis in pursuance to the advertisement Annexure P-5.

Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was a physically handicapped person with 44% disability.

Five thousand posts of Lineman had been advertised by the respondents.

Out of the said posts, 128 posts were reserved for the candidates under the Physically Handicapped category.

Petitioner applied for the said post under the reserved category of Physically Handicapped.

Sandeep Sethi 2014.07.09 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.5202 of 2012 -2- However, petitioner had not been issued the appointment letter.

Hence, the present writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was suffering 44% physical disability due to shortening of left leg by two inches with stiffness of ankle joint.

Petitioner was capable of performing the duties of Lineman and the respondents were liable to be directed to appoint the petitioner as a Lineman.

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that the petitioner was unable to perform the duties attached to the post of Lineman.

Para two of the written statement on merits reads as under:- “That the contents of para No.2 are denied for want of knowledge regarding the financial status of the petitioner.

It is denied that the petitioner fulfilled the qualifications for the post of Lineman as is actually projected in the petition wherein he wants his claim to be considered under the physically handicapped quota.

It is relevant to mention herein that the post of the Lineman is such which requires lot of physical labour including climbing on the poles to maintain the un-interrupted supply of power etc.in the air since the disability on the part of leg, ankle etc.can become an impediment in performing work efficiently and there is also risk to the Sandeep Sethi 2014.07.09 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.5202 of 2012 -3- said employee, in case he is appointed on the same, whereas disability of partial deafness etc.would not affect the efficiency to that level and would also help in promoting and achieving the objects as laid down in the Constitution of India.

Thus, there is no occasion for the petitioner of feeling aggrieved.”

.

Thus, in the present case, petitioner was not appointed as a Linemen as he was unable to perform the duties of a Lineman due to disability suffered by him.

Petitioner due to his disability would not be able to perform his duties efficiently as the post required lot of physical labour and there would be risk to him also.

In these circumstances, no ground for interference is made out.

Dismissed.

(SABINA) JUDGE July 04, 2014.

sandeep sethi Sandeep Sethi 2014.07.09 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document