IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:11.03.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR WRIT PETITION NOS.3087, 1403, 1480 OF 2011 AND WRIT PETITION (MD) NOS.1135 AND 1691 OF 2011 AS WELL AS CONNECTED MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS. .. P.Senthil Kumaran .. Petitioner in WP.3087 of 2011 M.Sadiq Basha .. Petitioner in WP.1403 of 2011 S.Karthikeyan .. Petitioner in WP.1480 of 2011 V.Gunasekaran .. Petitioner in WP(MD)No.1135/11 M.Ponniah .. Petitioner in WP(MD)No.1691/11 vs. 1.The Registrar General High Court, Madras. 2.The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. By Secretary to Government Public (Special-A) Department Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009. 3.The Principal Secretary to Government Social Welfare and Noon Meal Project (SW4) Department Government of Tamil Nadu Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. 4.The District Disabled Rehabilitation Officer Sivagangai District. 5.R.Sakthivel 6.A.Kanthakumar 7.T.S.Nand Kumar 8.S.Pandiarajan 9.A.Nazeema Banu 10.R.Anburaj 11.S.Subadevi 12.R.Poornima 13.P.Dhanabal 14.C.Kuumarappan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 15.M.Jothiraman 16.M.D.Sumathi 17.P.Murugan 18.M.Suresh Viswanath 19.A.K.A.Rahmman 20.K.Rajasekar 21.K.H.Elvazhagan .. Respondents in W.P.3087 of 2011 1.The Registrar General High Court, Madras. 2.The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. By Secretary to Government Public (Special-A) Department Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009. 3.R.Sakthivel 4.A.Kanthakumar 5.T.S.Nanda Kumar 6.S.Pandiarajan 7.A.Nazeema Banu 8.R.Anburaj 9.S.Subadevi 10.R.Poornima 11.P.Dhanabal 12.C.Kuumarappan 13.M.Jothiraman 14.M.D.Sumathi 15.P.Murugan 16.M.Suresh Viswanath 17.A.K.A.Rahmaan 18.K.Rajasekar 19.K.H.Elvazhagan .. Respondents in W.P.1403 of 2011 1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Chief Secretary Public (Special-A) Department Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Registrar General Madras High Court High Court Buildings Chennai 104. 3.R.Sakthivel https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.A.Kanthakumar 5.T.S.Nanda Kumar 6.S.Pandiarajan 7.A.Nazeema Banu 8.R.Anburaj 9.S.Subadevi 10.R.Poornima 11.P.Dhanabal 12.C.Kuumarappan 13.M.Jothiraman 14.M.D.Sumathi 15.P.Murugan 16.M.Suresh Viswanath 17.A.K.A.Rahmman 18.K.Rajasekar 19.K.H.Elvazhagan .. Respondents in W.P.1480 of 2011 1.The Chief Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu Secretariat, Chennai. 2.The Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu Public (Special-A) Department Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. 3.The Registrar General Madras High Court Chennai 600 014. 4.R.Sakthivel 5.A.Kanthakumar 6.T.S.Nand Kumar 7.S.Pandiarajan 8.A.Nazeema Banu 9.R.Anburaj 10.S.Subadevi 11.R.Poornima 12.P.Dhanabal 13.C.Kuumarappan 14.M.Jothiraman 15.M.D.Sumathi 16.P.Murugan 17.M.Suresh Viswanath 18.A.K.A.Rahmaan 19.K.Rajasekar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 20.K.H.Elvazhagan .. Respondents in WP(MD).Nos.1135 and 1691 of 2011. Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus (1) calling for the records relating to the order of the 2nd respondent dated 05.01.2011 in G.O.Ms.No.16 Public (Special.A) Department and quash the same and direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to implement the G.O.Ms.No.87 dated 17.07.2008 SW & NMP Department and Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1995 and select the petitioner to the post of District judge (Entry level)(WP 3087 of 2011) (2)call for the records on the file of the respondent No.2 in GO 16 dated 5.1.2011 and quash the same as illegal incompetent unconstitutional biased and unfair and further direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as District Judge in the Tamil Nadu Cadre (WP No.1403 of 2011) (3) call for the records pertaining to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.16 Public (Special A) Department dt.5.1.2011 more particularly the records pertaining to the conduct of viva voce and to quash the same as arbitrary ultra vires and against the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules 2007 and as unconstitutional and consequentially direct the respondents 1 and 2 to issue order of appointment to the petitioner herein as per Rules (WP No.1480 of 2011) (4)calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 5.1.2011 made in G.O.Ms.No.16 issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st and 2nd respondents herein to appoint the petitioner herein as District Judge (Entry Level) (WP No.1135 of 2011). (5) calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 5.1.2011 made in G.O.Ms.No.16 issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st and 3rd respondents herein to appoint the petitioner herein as District Judge (Entry Level) (WP No.1691 of 2011). For petitioner in : Mr.R.Gandhi,Sr.Counsel WP.No.3087 of 2011 for Mr.S.Vadivel Murugan For petitioner in : Mr.V.Raghavachari WP.No.1403 of 2011 for Mr.S.S.Manian https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For petitioner in : Mr.P.N.Prakash WP.No.1408 of 2011 For petitioners in : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan WP(MD)Nos.1135 & 1691 of 2011 For R.1 in WP.No. : Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy,Sr.Counsel 3087 of 2011 for Mr.V.Ayyadurai For R.2 to R.4 in : Mr.K.Balasubramanian WP.No.3087 of 2011 Spl.Govt. Pleader For R.5 to R.15 and : Not ready in notice R.17 to R.21 in WP.No.3087 of 2011 For R.16 in WP.No. : Mr.R.Ramesh Kumar 3087 of 2011 For R.1 in WP.No. : Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy,Sr.Counsel 1403 of 2011 for Mr.V.Ayyadurai For R.2 in WP.No. : Mr.K.Balasubramanian 1403 of 2011 Spl.Govt. Pleader For R.3 & R.11 in : Mr.Mohamed Shafi WP.Nos.1403&1480/11 For R.4 in WP.Nos. : Mr.A.Karthikeyan 1403&1480/11 For R.5 & R.8 in : Not ready in notice WP.Nos.1403&1480/11 For R.6 in WP.Nos. : Mr.P.Murugan 1403&1480/11 For R.7 in WP.Nos. : Mr.M.Santhanaraman 1403&1480/11 For R.9 in WP.Nos. : Ms.R.Manimekalai 1403&1480/11 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For R.10 in WP.Nos. : Mr.B.Soundarapandian 1403&1480/11 For R.12 in WP.Nos. : Mr.V.Manokaran 1403&1480/11 For R.13 & R.15 in : Mr.V.P.Rajendran WP.Nos.1403&1480/11 For R.14 in WP.Nos. : Mr.S.Rameshkumar 1403&1480/11 For R.16 & R.18 in : Mr.M.Devaraj WP.Nos.1403&1480/11 For R.17 in WP.Nos. : Mr.C.Prasanna Venkatesh 1403&1480/11 For R.19 in WP.Nos. : Mr.K.Shanmugakani 1403&1480/11 For R.2 in WP.No. : Mr.K.Balasubramanian 1480 of 2011 Spl.Govt. Pleader For R.1 in WP.No. : Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy,Sr.Counsel 1480 of 2011 for Mr.V.Ayyadurai For R.1&2 in WP.(MD): Mr.K.Balasubramanian Nos.1135&1691/11 Spl.Govt. Pleader For R.3 in WP.(MD) : Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy,Sr.Counsel Nos.1135&1691/11 for Mr.V.Ayyadurai For R.4&12 in WP. : Mr.Mohamed Shafi (MD)Nos.1135&1691/11 For R.5 in WP. : Mr.A.Karthikeyan (MD)Nos.1135&1691/11 For R.6 in WP. : Mr.I.Jayaseelan (MD)Nos.1135&1691/11 For R.11 in WP. : Mr.Periyasamy (MD)Nos.1135&1691/11 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For R.13 in WP. : Mr.V.Manoharan (MD)Nos.1135&1691/11 For R.15 in WP. : Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar (MD)Nos.1135&1691/11 For R.16 in WP. : Mr.P.Gnanasekar (MD)Nos.1135&1691/11 For R.17&19 in WP. : Mr.M.Devaraj (MD)Nos.1135&1691/11 For R.18 in WP. : Mr.C.Prasanna Venkatesh (MD)Nos.1135&1691/11 .. COMMON ORDER In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have assailed the same notification issued by the Government, appointing 17 District Judges (Entry Level) on various grounds and hence, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. This is another round of writ petitions filed, of course, now challenging the Government Order issued under Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007, by the Government in consultation with the High Court. 3. Originally, in a batch of writ petitions, the notification issued by the Government on 01.07.2010, calling for applications for the posts of District Judges (Entry Level) in respect of 17 vacancies was challenged on various grounds including that, the distribution of 17 vacancies against each category does not include the disabled persons, since as per Section 33 read with Section 2(k) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities, Protection of rights and Full Participation) Act,1995, they are entitled for 3% reservation; that for short-listing the candidates for viva-voce examination, the manner in which the length of Bar experience was to be taken into consideration was not clearly explained; that the viva-voce marks should not exceed 12.5% as per the judgment of the Supreme Court; that the person already in service of the Union or State is disqualified from applying unless he has seven years of experience as Advocate or Pleader, with the result the Assistant Public Prosecutors Grade I and Grade II, who were employed by the State Government drawing salary from the Government exchequer are not eligible, apart from other grounds. The batch of writ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitions was dismissed by the Hon’ble First Bench of this Court on 26.08.2010 reported in K.Appadurai vs. Secretary to Government, Public (Special A) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai-9 and another (2010 (5) CTC 1). 4. The selection process for the said posts as per the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules,2007 consisted of the written examination and viva-voce. The maximum marks allotted for written examination and viva-voce as per the Rules are 75% and 25% respectively and total marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination and viva-voce are taken together subject to the rule of reservation for appointment. Accordingly, the written examinations were conducted by the High Court on 30.10.2010, in which 2047 candidates have appeared, from whom a list of candidates for viva-voce was short listed. Considering the number of vacancies to be filled up and following the distribution pattern as per the notification, from among the merit list of the candidates prepared based on the marks secured in the written examination, 103 candidates were short listed by taking into consideration the rule of reservation and merit. Thereafter, viva-voce was conducted by the Six Senior Most Judges of this Court, including the Hon’ble the Chief Justice between 11.11.2010 and 13.11.2010 and based on the performance in the viva-voce along with the marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination, a select list was drawn and sent to the Government by the High Court on 13.11.2010. 5. It was, at that stage, another batch of writ petitions came to be filed in W.P.Nos.25778 of 2010 etc., by the persons whose names did not find a place in the short-list mainly on the ground that while short- listing, in addition to the marks obtained in the written examination, weightage marks should have been given for the length of practice of the candidates in the Bar; that while in respect of 12 posts meant for men candidates 92 men candidates have been short-listed and on the other hand in respect of 5 vacancies reserved for women candidates, only 11 were short-listed and therefore, the zone of consideration was not arrived at in a proper proportion, and that the selection process should not have been conducted by the High Court, and that when an application was made for revaluation of answer papers, it was not considered. The said writ petitions came to be dismissed by this Court on 01.12.2010 in V.Yamuna Devi vs. The Registrar General, High Court, Madras and others (2011 (1) CTC 469), upholding the process of short- listing of candidates for viva-voce test. We are now informed that the SLP filed against the above said judgment was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.L.P.(Civil) No.621 of 2011 on 21.01.2011. 6. Subsequently, a list of selected candidates was prepared by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ High Court, based on the marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination and viva-voce conducted by the Senior Judges of this Court and the said list was accepted by the Government by issuing the impugned order. In these writ petitions, the final selection made by the Government is challenged by the petitioners, who were among the said 103 short-listed candidates participated in the viva-voce conducted. Two of the writ petitioners, viz., writ petitioner in W.P.No.3087 of 2011 and writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.1691 of 2011, who are at 103 and 78 in the rank list respectively and belonging to M.B.C., and General Turn respectively, are physically challenged persons with orthopedic disability and their main challenge is that the Government, having constituted 200 Point Roster System on the policy of reservation, ought to have granted 3% of seats to physically challenged persons as per the Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities, Protection of rights and Full Participation) Act,1995 and not even one person has been appointed out of 17, even though candidates like the petitioners were available. 7. The writ petitioner in W.P.No.1403 of 2011, who belongs to Muslim Backward Class is found at rank No.11 in the rank list, he having obtained 53 marks in the written examination out of 75, while Mr.A.K.A.Rahman, 17th respondent, obtained 40.68 marks in the written examination and found at Serial No.68 in the rank list. 8. Likewise, the writ petitioner in W.P.No.1480 of 2011 stands at 15th rank in the rank list and he has not been selected and he has made a representation to the Governor on 31.12.2010, bringing out certain alleged irregularities in selection and his case is mainly that the consultation process as contemplated under the Constitution of India has not been exercised by the Governor properly. 9. W.P.(MD)No.1135 of 2011, has been filed by a candidate, who belongs to Backward Class Community, stood at 18 in the rank list and he has not been selected. 10. Apart from the above said specific grounds raised by the petitioners, they have raised broadly various points to assail the impugned order, viz., that, (i) Marks in the viva-voce ought to have been published since as per the notification and also the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules,2007, the selection has to be made based on the results of the written examination and viva-voce, that means on the basis of the total marks obtained by the candidates in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ written examination and viva-voce taken together and therefore when the marks obtained in the written examinations have been published, the non-publication of the marks obtained by the candidates in the viva-voce, is in violation of the Rules as well as the notification; (ii)It has been the case of the petitioners that the nature of interview conducted shows that there has been no fair selection. It is their case that while on the first two days, viva-voce was conducted for 25 candidates on each day, the third day, remaining candidates were examined hurriedly and few of the candidates who got less marks in the written examination got selected during the said third day. According to them, there should have been a proper method or guidelines followed by the Committee of Judges in conducting the interview and in the absence of such guidelines, the selection should stand vitiated; (iii) Short-listing of candidates for interview itself is bad and in the absence of any yardstick for the purpose of short-listing, the very aspect of calling 103 candidates for viva-voce test is bad in law. Even though the validity of the short-listing of candidates was already upheld by this Court in Yamuna Devi’s case (2011 (1) CTC 469), Mr.P.N.Prakash, learned counsel specifically contents that the question of short-listing is on the manner of yardstick, viz., a different ground and not on the basis of the requirement of Bar experience as raised in the Yamuna Devi’s case; (iv)The selection should have been approved by the Full Court of all Judges and constitution of a Committee for conducting interview which amounts to delegation of power by Full Court is not permissible as per the construction of Article 233 of the Constitution of India. In addition to the above said challenge, the point relating to physically challenged persons and the legal necessity of providing 3% to the physically challenged persons and even not one, out of 17 has not been selected in this category has been emphasised. 11. In the common counter affidavit filed by the Registrar General, Madras High Court in these cases, while narrating about the notification issued by the Government on 24.6.2010, calling for applications for appointment to 17 posts of District Judges (Entry Level) and also as to the distribution of 17 vacancies based on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ reservation, it is stated that the maximum marks allotted for the written examination was 75 marks and for viva-voce 25 marks and the selection was to be made based on the total marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination and viva-voce put together. (a) It is stated that 2541 applicants were permitted to appear for the written examination on 3.10.2010 and the answer sheets were valued by the Hon’ble Judges of the High Court and the marks obtained by the candidates were published and hosted in the High Court website. Thereafter, 103 candidates in the order of merit in the written examination were short-listed and the short-listing was done having regard to the merit, vacancies read with rules of reservation. (b) The viva-voce-interview was conducted from 11.11.2010 to 13.11.2010 and the same was conducted by the Hon’ble senior Judges of this Court headed by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. It is stated that on 11.11.2010, 25 candidates were interviewed and on 12.11.2010 and 13.11.2010 78 candidates were interviewed at the rate of 39 candidates per day. The viva-voce was conducted to ascertain the merit, ability and aptitude of the candidates, which are the paramount criteria for selection. After viva-voce, marks in the written examination and viva- voce were put together and select list was drawn and forwarded to the Government by the High Court. (c) In the counter affidavit, the filing of earlier writ petitions has also been mentioned and it is stated that the Government passed G.O.Ms.No.16 Public (Special A) Department, dated 5.1.2011 appointing 17 persons as District Judges and the same is impugned in these writ petitions. It is also denied that viva-voce was conducted arbitrarily and in violation of Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution of India. It is stated that inasmuch as the Hon’ble the Chief Justice and five senior most Hon’ble Judges conducted the interview, reliability of the procedure and principles adopted cannot be questioned. It is also stated that none of the candidates at the time of interview raised any objection about the manner of conducting the viva-voce. (d) The purpose of viva-voce was to assess the qualities like, alertness, ability to take decision and tactness which were assessed by the experienced Judges of this Court. It is stated that while written examination is conducted involving objective test, viva-voce is subjective assessment and therefore, it cannot be true that a person who scores high marks in the entrance examination will always fair well in viva-voce. Since the Committee which conducted the viva-voce consisted of senior Hon’ble Judges, it is improper to probe into the genuineness of the same and their eminence, integrity, caliber and mobility cannot be questioned. It is stated that viva-voce marks formed part of the process of selection and the non-publication of marks in viva-voce would not vitiate the selection process.It is stated that the allegation of the petitioners that no marks were allotted for viva-voce test is based on surmises. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (e) It is stated that viva-voce which forms part of the selection process is to identify the candidates in terms of technical competence, aptitude, etc. which are personal to the candidates and such reasons cannot be disclosed since, according to the Registrar General, they are fiduciary in nature exempted under section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the Right to Information Act,2005 and the disclosure of such marks also does not go to serve any public interest. It is also stated that insofar as the short listing of candidates is concerned, inasmuch as the Division Bench of this Court has already rendered judgment as reported in V.Yamuna Devi vs. The Registrar General, High Court, Madras and others [2011 (1) CTC 469], upholding the validity of the said short list of candidates, it is not open to the petitioners to reagitate the same. (f) In respect of the claim of the writ petitioners regarding appointment of physically handicapped persons as per G.O.Ms.No.87, Social Welfare Department dated 17.07.2008 and Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act,1995, it is stated that the same was considered earlier in the batch of writ petitions and even though there were some observations made, it is the case of the second respondent, the Registrar General that inasmuch as the appointment of District Judges is as per Article 233 of the Constitution of India, neither the State nor the Government has any role to play controlling the appointment of District Judges and therefore, the percentage to differently abled persons cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is also stated that even otherwise, such claim of 3% reservation as per the Act cannot be made until the requisite identification of posts is made in terms of section 32 of the Act. Inasmuch as the identification of the posts has not been done as per the Act by the State Government, according to the second respondent, the Registrar General, the writ petitions in that regard are liable to be dismissed. (g) It is also stated that in respect of selected candidates, they were directed to furnish physical fitness certificate and the same was verified and the Government was addressed for supernumerary posts to impart training to the selected candidates as per the Rules. 12. The Government of Tamil Nadu through its Secretary, Public and Rehabilitation Department filed an affidavit dated 24.2.2011, adopting the counter affidavit filed by the Registrar General of High Court insofar as it concerns with the Government. 13. Mr.R.Gandhi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.3087 of 2011, who is a physically challenged candidate placed at 103 in the rank list with 60% orthopaedic physical disability would submit that, in G.O.Ms.No.87, Social Welfare Department dated 17.7.2008 in the 200 Point Roster drawn by the Government, it is clearly stated that out of 200 points, 6 posts are to be filled up from among the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ physically challenged persons viz., blind, deaf and orthopaedically disabled persons at the ratio 1:1:1 equally, one out of 33 vacancies, that is to say, it is to be filled up between 1 to 33, 34 to 66, 67 to 100, 101 to 133, 134 to 166, 167 to 200 in the communal roster. His contention is that within 33 vacancies if an eligible candidate from physically handicapped person is available, he has a right of selection and in the present case, the petitioner who has come within the zone of consideration viz., he has come within the rank list of 103 candidates, in all fairness, he should have been selected by implementing the social beneficial legislation viz., Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act,1995 which has been agreed to be implemented by the Government in the Government Order. (a) He would also specifically rely upon the undertaking given in the first round of writ petitions reported in K.Appadurai vs. The Secretary to Government, Public (Special A) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai 9 and another [2010 (5) CTC 1], wherein it was clearly stated that the obligation of filling up of 3% vacancies would be carried out at the time of appointment by appointing one individual belonging to differently abled category in each of the six blocks of 200 point Communal Roster and submit that in spite of such undertaking and also specific incorporation of providing 3% reservation to physically challenged persons in the notification issued by the Government calling for applications for appointment to the posts of District Judges (Entry Level), the non-consideration of the case of the petitioner in the selection process is against the undertaking. (b) He would also submit that inasmuch as viva-voce marks have not been disclosed, there is lack of transparency in the process of selection. It is his further submission that even under the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007, Rule 10 specifically enables 3% vacancies to be given to physically handicapped persons and in spite of the categorical stand of the Government as well as in the Rules and notification, the legitimate rights of the physically handicapped persons are denied in the selection process. (c) It is his submission that mere non-ascertainment of vacancies would not take away the right of physically challenged persons which has been given statutorily. In respect of the claim of disclosure of viva-voce marks, it is his submission that the provisions of Section 8 (1)(e) and (j) of the Right to Information Act,2005 are not applicable since what the petitioner required is the disclosure of his marks. He would rely upon the judgments in Government of India through Secretary and another vs. Ravi Prakash Gupta and another [(2010) 7 SCC 626], Syed Bashir-ud-din Qadri vs. Nazir Ahmed Shah and others [(2010) 3 SCC 603] and Prof.I.Elangovan,Vellore vs. Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Chief Secretary, Chennai and others [(2008) 3 MLJ 481 (DB)]. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 14. Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel appearing for another physically handicapped petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.1691 of 2011, who is placed at 78 in general turn in the rank list would adopt the arguments of Mr.R.Gandhi,