WP(C)/12/2007 of Bhumika Sharma Vs State of Sikkim and others on 19 December 2007

Sel.'alDateOffice Note as toNo. ojofOrder with Signatureaction(ifany) IOrderOrdertakenonorder Ipetitioner for her disability but we are unable togrant any relief to her for the reasons statedbelow.The main grievance of the writ petitioner isagainst Clause 6 of the Notification dated17-11-2003. The said Clause 6 mentions thattherewouldbenocarryingforwardofrosterpointsand this is what the writ petitioner is aggrieved by.The learned counsel for the writ petitioner reliedIheavily and solely on the D±iEg±±c± of 192§which is the first Act of 1996 and the full headingis The Persons with Disabilities (EqualOpportunities, Protection of Rights and FullPal-ticipation) Act, 1995.Sections 33 and 36 of the said Act werereliedupononthepartofthewritpetitioner.The said two Sections are set out below:-"33.Reservationofposts.-EveryappropriateGovernment shall appoint in every establishmentsuch percentage of vacancies not less than threeper cent. for persons or class of persons withdisability of which one per cent. each shall bereserved for persons suffering from-(i) blindness or low vision; I \

Office Note as toaction (if any)takenonOrder a a -Serial r\SeriaNo.ofOrderI DateofOrderOffice Note as toaction(ifany)Order with Signaturetaken on Orderidentification of locomotor disabilities posts u/s.33 by the establishment in question under the1995 Act before Section 36 could be invoked bythewritpetitioner.Thewritpetitionisthusmisconceived in law and is dismissed without anyorderastocosts.(A.N.Ray,CJ)(A.P.`Subba,J)