TARIQ JAVAID, J.--- In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed that he being at serial No,96- on the merit list was entitled to the appointment whereas, respondent No,7 who was placed at serial No,121 of the merit list has been appointed. The case of the petitioner is that he applied for the post of Elementary School Educator in Tehsil Kot Addu District Muzaffargarh, qualified the interview and was placed at serial No,96 on the merit list. The candidates up to serial No,90 were appointed whereas candidates from serials Nos.91 to 95 did not join, then it was the petitioner who ought to have been offered posting whereas respondents No,7, who was at serial No,121 was appointed.
2. The learned Law Officer submits that there were 230 vacancies. Respondent No,7 being disabled persons was not appointed on open merit. However, he was appointed on disabled quota. Under the rules disabled persons were allowed 2% quota and hence the petitioner could not be appointed. It is further maintained that instead of 2% quota 22 disabled persons were appointed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not really assail the appointments of 22 candidates appointed on 2% quota out of 230 seats. In fact on humanitarian grounds no real challenge is thrown at the 22 persons selected out of 230 against 2% quota which means that as against 230 appointments not more than 5 disabled candidates ought to have been appointed. If this was so, the petitioner would have been appointed in a school of his choice. However, he has maintained that still there are number of seats vacant though there is no vacant seat in the school for which he opted to join.
4. As there are number of vacancies available in other schools, the petitioner who was otherwise eligible for the posting cannot be denied same on the pretext that a disabled person has been appointed in a School of his choice as such his application fails. Contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not without force. It is very much appreciated that 22 disabled candidates have been accommodated instead of 2% quota out of 230 which comes to at the most five candidates. If only five candidates were to be appointed in accordance with rules then the petitioner would have been qualified for appointment. This fact is not denied by the respondents.
The petitioner submits that 22 appointees, being disabled persons, may not be disturbed. However, the offer of the petitioner to join any other school available is reasonable. The respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner on any available vacancy near to his place of abode as he cannot be made to suffer for the sole reason that 22 disabled candidates have already been accommodated whereas under the rules only 5 were to be accommodated. Admittedly, the disabled persons have been accommodated who deserve a special treatment by the society, against the 2% quota; therefore, I do not deem it proper to pass any adverse order against them.
However, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer in the circumstances wherein still there are vacancies available. The School children are deprived of education as teachers are not available.
The candidates are being denied appointments on mere technicalities. This state of affairs cannot be allowed to sustain. The vacancies are available. The respondents must accommodate the disabled persons. They must also accommodate the petitioner. This petition is allowed with no order as to costs.