' TARIQ JAVAID, J.--- The petitioner, through this constitutional petition, seeks an order against the respondents restraining them from removing the petitioner from service or taking any adverse action against him on the basis of his disability.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being deaf and dumb applied for his posting as Assistant Line Man on contract basis with respondent No,
1. The petitioner disclosed in his application that he was deaf and dumb. He annexed his matriculation certificate along with report from the District Assessment Board, wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner was deaf and dumb, however, he was declared to be fit for the job as Assistant Line Man. The petitioner was invited for interview. He appeared for interview before the authority, was selected in the interview and appointment letter dated 31-10-2009 was issued to him. Subsequently, the respondents refused to post the petitioner on the ground that he was deaf and dumb person and according to the condition enumerated at (0) ( requirement of contract) he was required to produce certificate of medical fitness of Medical Superintendent, WAPDA Hospital. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that although the petitioner had applied for appointment on open merit yet being deaf and dumb he was selected and he could not be denied positing subsequently,
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has heavily placed reliance on the said condition (0) and maintained that the petitioner being deaf and dumb is not entitled for the posting.
4. It is amazing that the petitioner, who had already disclosed in the application form that he was deaf and dumb had appended certificate from District Assessing Board in this regard, was interviewed by the respondents and no objection was raised and contract dated 21-12-2009 was signed with him and letter dated 31-10-2009 was issued in his favour. Now he is being denied the posting. Denial appears to be an afterthought which is unjust and illegal on the face of it. If respondents had any reservation for posting of the petitioner they ought to have disclosed the same at very initial stage when application was received or at least at the stage when he was interviewed. His application was entertained, he qualified the interview. The disability however was not of the nature which could allegedly be suppressed and the respondents could argue that they were kept oblivious of the disability. The interviewing authority, if had any objection, could easily reject the petitioner at that stage. Once the petitioner has been selected in the interview now it is not open for the respondents to refuse petitioner's posting. In this view of the matter, this petition is allowed and respondents are directed to issue posting order to the petitioner strictly in accordance with law.