' The petitioner, a disabled person, through this Constitutional petition has sought direction in the nature of writ of mandamus praying that his case for the post of Assistant Professor be considered in accordance with the dictates of Ordinance XL of 1981 called the Disabled Persons (Employment and Rehabilitation) Ordinance, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as an Ordinance).
2. Facts briefly are that an advertisement appeared in daily 'Pakistan Times' on Friday the 8th April, 1988 for 250 temporary posts of Assistant Professor likely to be made permanent in Collegiate Branch Men Section in the Province of Punjab. In the Specially of Urdu, 34 posts were allocated and the bifurcation thereof was given in the advertisement as under:-- {{TABLE}} "On all Punjab basis 7 Zone-II 8 Zone-I 19 Total: 34 {{TABLE}} ' Requirements for the applicant was (a) 1st Class Master Degree in the relevant subject from a recognized University with five years' teaching experience in a college or (b) qualification higher than MA./M.Sc. Requiring at least two academic years of regular study. NOTE: The qualification higher than MA./M.Sc. Means M.Phil and Ph.D. Degrees.
3. It is petitioner's case that section 10 of the Ordinance has ordained that one per cent. Of total number of posts in any establishment shall be filled from amongst disabled persons. Section 10 of the Ordinance is as under:-- "Establishments to employ disabled persons.---(1) Not less than one per cent. Of the total number of persons employed by an establishment at any time shall be disabled persons whose names have been registered with the Employment Exchange of the area in which such establishment is located and against whose names in the register maintained under section 12 an endorsement exists to the effect that they are fit to work.
(2) The disabled persons employed against any post in pursuance of subsection (1) shall be entitled to the terms and conditions which are not less favourable than those of the other persons employed by the establishment against similar posts.
(3) When calculating the percentage of the posts in an establishment for the purposes of employment of disabled persons, The fraction of 0.5 and above shall count as a whole number."
4. According to the petitioner he submitted his application on 19-4-1988 alongwith the certificate from the District Assessing Board as required under the Ordinance regarding his fitness to work for a teaching post. This certificate is appended as Annexure 6 with the writ petition. He also appended another certificate from the Directorate of Men Power Training Employment Exchange respecting his registration in pursuance to section 12 of the Ordinance.
5. Grievance is made that the respondent did not at all consider the case of the petitioner against the disabled quota as commanded by section 10 of the Ordinance.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the entire facts of this case. It must be stated at the very outset that the learned Law Officer has admitted that the petitioner's case was not considered against the 1% disabled quota. On the contrary it is reflected from the comments submitted by the respondent that 1% quota as mandated by section 10 of the Ordinance has not so far been worked out by the respondents. The intention of the law is very clear, section 1, subsection (3) provided that the Ordinance shall come into force on such day as the Federal Government may by notification in the official Gazette appoint. The Federal Government in this regard issued Gazette Notification for its promulgation on 29-12-1981. The intention of the law is very clear as reflected from the plain reading of section 10 of the Ordinance read with section 1, subsection (3) thereof which binds the respondents since the Gazette Notification to ensure that 1% of the total number of seats are allocated to the disabled persons. It is also admitted in the comments that the respondent Punjab Public Service Commission only found 19 persons suitable for posting of Assistant Professor in various colleges of the Punjab. There are according to the report still some posts available in the subject of Urdu. I failed to understand how the authorities have stated in their comments that the prescribed percentage of the disabled persons' quota was still to be worked out. The stance of the respondents that the ratio of the disabled persons would be maintained after the new selection for which advertisement would appear shortly in the newspapers, is uncalled for as the same is clearly in violation of section 10 of the Ordinance. This is hardly any answer to the clear cut mandate for providing ratio of disabled quota from 29th December, 1981. In the present case 250 posts of Assistant Professor were to be filled as such according to section 10 of the Ordinance the petitioner would be entitled to compete on the disabled seats provided he is otherwise eligible in accordance with its dictates. Non-consideration by the respondent of the petitioner on the disabled quota has deprived him of his valuable right which accrued to him under the Ordinance. It is pertinent to mention here that 19 candidates who were appointed as Assistant Professor were made parties in this writ petition and in spite of notices and publications through daily `Nawa-i-Waqt' and daily 'News' , none of them entered appearance as such they were proceeded ex parte through order dated 8-2-1995. Since the petitioner's case has not been considered in accordance with the mandate of section 10 of the Ordinance as such this writ petition is accepted to the extent that the act of non-consideration of the petitioner by the respondents on disabled quota seats for the post of Assistant Professor as advertised on 8-4-1988 is declared to be without lawful authority and of not legal effect. Respondents are accordingly directed to consider his case on the disabled quota for the post of Assistant Professor. There shall be no order as to costs in the circumstances.