IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 21153 of 2006 Between: 1 The Director O/o. The Director General of Audit (Defence Services) 2 The Director Indian Audit and Accounts Department, No.1 Mumbai-400 039 3 The Deputy Director of Audit, Air Force and Navy, ABE Park, Vinod Nagar, 4 The Comptroller and Auditor General of India New Delhi. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 K.V. Ramana S/o. Appalanaidu R/o. Madakpalem Village, Paravada Mandalam, Visakhapatnam-21 2 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam. 3 Pilla Srinivasa rao S/o. Bangaraiah 4 The Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, G-31, Sector - 39, .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to o issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ calling for records pertaining to OA No. 804 of 2003 in Order dt. 30-6-2004 and quash the same in so far as quashing of Circular dt. 20-3-2003 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional or pass such any other appropriate order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI. JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 21153 of 2006 ORDER: (Per the Honourable Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) This writ petition is filed challenging the order, dated 30.6.2004 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.804 of 2003. The respondent herein is the applicant before the Tribunal. He filed the above O.A. seeking to call for the records pertaining to the selection of Group ‘D’ (Peon) posts in the 3rd respondent office and also the proceedings of June, 2003 in No.E16/KW/2003-2004 on the file of the 2nd respondent and to quash the same including the selection of the 5th respondent and consequently, to direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for appointment to the post of Group ‘D’ (Peon). It is the case of the respondent-applicant that he is physically handicapped person with disability of 60% as per the medical certificate issued by the competent authority in respect of the Orthopaedically Handicapped candidates and his disability relates to right leg. On 4.1.2003, the Deputy Director of Audits, Air Force and Navy, ABE Part, Visakhapatnam, issued notification inviting applications from the eligible physically handicapped persons to the post of Group ‘D’ (Peon) and as per the notification, it is reserved for General –Physically Handicapped –One Arm Affected (Right or Left) (a) Impaired reach (b) Weakness of grip (c) at axis. The applicant applied for the same, but he did not receive any call letter for interview. Hence, he approached the tribunal by filing O.A.No.332/2003 in which, the authorities are directed to conduct interview in respect of the applicant. Subsequently, the applicant came to know that the 5th respondent herein was selected to the said post. Hence, the present O.A. is filed by the applicant on the ground that the sub-categorization made for the physically handicapped persons under the notification restricting the selection to only one arm affected person for the reserved General post of PH is not permissible under law. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that since the applicant does not come under the sub-category of One Arm affected physically handicapped category, he could not be selected for the post notified at Visakhapatnam and that sub-categorization of the posts reserved for the physically handicapped persons distributing them to the various Branch Offices has been done by the 1st respondent and the post to be filled up for Physically Handicapped under general quota at the office of the 3rd respondent has been reserved to the sub-category of One Arm affected under the said instructions issued by the 1st respondent and that the said action is permissible under the provisions of Section 33 of the Act. The tribunal having observed that the said post of peon is identified as being suitable for being filled up by the persons belonging to any of the 3 categories of the physically handicapped persons and 5 vacancies are reserved for filling up the said posts from the said three categories under the orders issued by the 1st respondent and that there is no justification for further dividing the posts meant for Orthopaedic disability as relating to leg and as relating to Arm and all the Orthopaedic disabled persons whether Arm or leg are entitled to be considered for appointment to the said posts of peon and therefore, reserving the post notified by the 3rd respondent exclusively to be filled up by the PH-OA, PH-OL is not permissible under law and the impugned circular instructions issued under Annexures R1 to R3 from the office of the 1st respondent are liable to be quashed on the ground that they are discriminatory and violative of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities), Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and the rules framed thereunder, allowed the O.A. Having aggrieved by the same, the authorities preferred the present writ petition. Heard the learned Assistant Solicitor General and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-applicant and perused the material available on record. Before going to deal with the case on hand, it is relevant to note that as per the provisions of the Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, out of 3% of vacancies to be reserved for physically handicapped persons, one percent each can be reserved for persons suffering from the blindness or low vision; hearing impairment and locomotor disability or cerebral palsy, in the posts identified for each disability. Now coming to the case on hand, the post was notified under the notification issued by the 3rd respondent for physically handicapped persons falls under the category of Locomotor Disability and the same cannot be restricted to the persons arm affected by sub-categorizing the same and any action in this regard, denying the eligibility for the said post in respect of PH persons suffering from Locomotor disability, amounts to discrimination and apart from that, allotment of such posts only to the Branch Offices of a particular city would amount to denial of equal opportunity. The tribunal having gone into all these material facts and the provisions of the Act, has rightly observed that basing on the letters issued from the office of the 1st respondent, the sub-categorization of the Orthopaedically Handicapped persons, is not permissible under law. In view of the observations made by the tribunal having gone into the merits of the case and the provisions, We have no other go except to concur with the findings of the tribunal. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari _________________ Justice G.Chandraiah Dated:19.03.2008 Gurc/nn THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI. JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO :21153 of 2006 (Division Bench Order delivered by Honourable Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) 19/03/2008 ,