Union of India & Anr. v. Ranjit Kumar Gupta

1. The appellants have impugned the order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.04.2019 passed in W.P.(C) 13258/2018 which observes as under:

2. Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant, submits that due to the non-supply of documents for verification within the specified time, the respondent had lost his right to be considered for employment. Subsequently, other people have been considered for filling the vacancies: Indeed, in the current exercise, 177 vacancies were declared, written examinations have been conducted and 176+1 candidates have been put in the Select List, their documents have been verified and only their medical examination has to be carried out. The candidate identified as “plus one” is a candidate whose claim arose in the year 2018. He submits that therefore, it is not possible for the respondent to be accommodated.

3. The impugned order has referred to the Rule apropos the second opportunity for document verification to be granted to the candidates in the merit list. It has held, inter alia, as under:- "...11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that since the number of absentees was huge in the special recruitment drive for PWD candidates, which was done in pursuance of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court, an opportunity was further given to the extra candidates who were successful in the written test, but were below in the merit order as a special consideration. The target date for finalization of SRD had been exceeded and only as a special consideration, some extra candidates were called for first time DV against absentees and there was no provision for any such second DV to be followed for such cases.

12. The fact remains that RBE guidelines dated 10.12.2014 is as under: "(iii) Document verification be held in terms of instructions contained in para 7.[9] of Annexure-I of RBE No.121/2005 in such a manner that a candidate appearing for the same may be given 02(two) block dates on which a candidate can get this procedure done. The two block dates shall have a minimum gap of 02(two) weeks. This may be implemented in recruitment exercise with respect notification issued in 2013 and thereafter."

13. The selection process in question was initiated pursuant to the directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and for physically challenged candidates even though the RBE guidelines dated 10.12.2014 is applicable. The respondents have failed to establish that the petitioner failed to appear in the first and second DV dates but the case of the respondents is that on 02.08.2016, first date of verification on the website was uploaded to appear on 12.08.2016. however, petitioner failed to appear.

14. Annexure P-7 which is at page 46 depicts that vide said letter, the petitioner was asked to appear in person on 12.08.2016 at 15:00 p.m. for verification of documents at Kolkata. Even if it is assumed, that was the first chance to the petitioner and he received before time and failed to appear in the document verification still as per the guidelines noted above, the petitioner is entitled to second chance for document verification which in any way has not been granted to the petitioner... "

4. The extension of the zone of consideration was under directions of the Supreme Court. Once a candidate comes into the zone of consideration, she/he gets a right to be considered for employment as per the Recruitment Rules. The second occasion for verification of documents has to be provided to all candidates. All the more, in cases pertaining to recruitment of persons under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 („Act‟). The category of specially abled persons has been identified for statutory preferential treatment as an enabling step towards their empowerment so that they can compete, to the extent feasible with persons, who are otherwise able bodied.

5. The court is cognizant of the fact that this appointment would be under a statute specially enacted to augment employment of persons suffering from disabilities. The statute is a manifestation of an enabling welfare measure of the State, as a person who is categorised as disabled, would face many difficulties and prejudices in finding employment. Therefore, when the State initiates a recruitment exercise and the candidate so categorised qualifies for such recruitment, the same should not be defeated because of the lack of verification of the documents, which in the present case, was on account of the lapse by the employer itself.

6. The Rules, as has been noted hereinabove, provide for a second round of verification of the documents. In this case, the candidate is visually handicapped. Having missed the first round, he sought verification in the second round which was not made available to him. It has caused prejudice to the respondent and is in breach of the Rules. His right cannot be scuttled. The second opportunity will have to be provided. This denial cannot be sustained.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the 12 vacancies which could not be filled-up in the previous exercise of the visually handicapped category, was carried forward and notified in the year 2019. Apropos these and other connected vacancies, written examinations were held and 12 candidates, alongwith others have been shortlisted. This is to be followed by document verification and other formalities. He submits that the current successful candidates should not be disturbed.

8. It is settled law that candidates who may have succeeded in a recruitment exercise would not necessarily have a vested right to appointment/ employment. All-the-more, if someone has a better claim and right. In the present case the respondent would have the first right to be appointed if his documents are verified and on other codal formalities being completed. The respondent had a right to be considered in the 2015 exercise. The appellant stands in the queue of selected candidates much prior in time. The subsequent selectees can claim appointment in a vacancy only when the right of the earlier candidate selected gets extinguished. Happily, for the appellant that eventuality has not yet arrived. Therefore, he would be considered on the basis of his performance in the 2015 recruitment exercise. If his documents were verified as per the second opportunity, he may have well succeeded.

9. In view of the above, it has been rightly directed in the impugned order that the documents of the respondent‟s case be considered for document verification and if the same are found in order, he shall be sent for medical examination.