Sajal Bansal And ORS v. Sarvesh Kaushal And ORS

COCP No.3605 of 2014 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.3605 of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision : 29.11.2018 Sajal Bansal and others ..Petitioners versus Sarvesh Kaushal and others .. Respondents Coram:

Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

Present:

Mr. Sukhdev Kamboj, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Sudeepti Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) The present contempt petition has been filed for noncompliance of order dated 11.10.2013 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in view of the pronouncement of judgment by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.9096 of 2013 titled as Union of India and others vs. National Federation of the Blinds and others, decided on 8.10.2013. The Hon'ble Apex Court issued the following directions:- "We hereby direct that "appropriate Government" to compute the number of vacancies available in all the "establishments" and further identify the posts for disabled persons within a period of three months form today and implement the same without default."

Reply has been filed. As per the same, the Departments were apprised all the orders passed by this Court as well as Hon'ble the Apex Court and direction was issued to take necessary steps to fulfill the backlog of vacancies. Cumulative information from various departments has been placed on record as Annexure R-1. It is the revised department-wise SHARMILA DEVI 2018.12.01 13:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document phhc

COCP No.3605 of 2014 -2summary of backlog of Group-A, B, C and D consisting 216 vacant posts reserved for the persons with disabilities. The reason why the posts are lying vacant has also been mentioned in the said document and the action plan to fill these vacant posts is incorporated in the remarks, which is stated to be either on account of the fact that the recruitment is under process or unavailability of suitable/eligible candidates for some posts or selected candidates either not joined or they were not offered appointment on account of pending litigation. In view of the above, re-advertisement has also been ordered in certain cases.

In view of above, the order dated 11.10.2013 stands complied with. No contempt is made out. Dismissed, accordingly. Rule issued to the respondents stands discharged. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 29.11.2018 sharmila Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No SHARMILA DEVI 2018.12.01 13:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document phhc