The Uttarakhand High Court in the case Dr. Harikesh v. State of Uttarakhand And Anr observed and has ordered the State of Uttarakhand and Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University to provisionally allow the visually challenged person for appearing in the interview for the post of Assistant Professor, Botany after the candidature of him was being rejected by the authorities.
In the present case, the petitioner who being 40% visually challenged, holds a Ph.D. degree in the subject of Botany along with NET and JRF in Life Science. Thus, pursuant to the advertisement which has been notified by the University, the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor as the petitioner had the minimum qualification for the appointment to the said post.
Therefore, the petitioner was also been informed in the Samarth Portal (the portal to apply jobs) that his marks have been updated and according to which the petitioner falls under the consideration of appointment as, he was also been informed as the petitioner was in the case found eligible on the basis of his marks.
The court in the case observed that when the authorities released the screening results of the application, to the utter shock of the petitioner it was being notified that there was ‘insufficient number of candidates who are eligible. Further, being agreed with the same, he made a representation to the authorities concerned and the same remained unanswered and the interview was scheduled to be held on 10.06.2023.
Further, the petitioner in the case was constrained to approach the High Court canvassing the grievances of him.
The Division bench comprising of Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Rakesh Thapliyal in its order stated that the said court is inclined to permit the petitioner to participate in the same provisionally, subject to further orders in the writ plea filed.
The court also asked the authorities for considering the candidature of the petitioner who being against both the reserved category as well as against the general category and in order to submit the results of the interview to the Court in a sealed cover on the next date.
Further, the court in the case observed and has ordered the respondents to file their respective counter-affidavits within the period of three weeks elucidating as to why the petitioner has not been called for the interview as prima facie the petitioner appears to be qualified not only against the reserved category post but also against the general category post. The counsel, Advocate, Mr. Varun Katiyar appeared for the petitioner. The counsel, Advocate, Mr. Amarendra Pratap Singh, Addl. Advocate General; Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta & Mr. Rafat Munir Ali represented the respondent.