THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO.868 OF 2004 ORDER: (As per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.M.P.No.3860 of 2004 in W.P.No.2931 of 2004 instituted by the petitioner herein challenging the validity of the order dated 12.04.2004, for not promoting him to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer. 2. The writ petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Executive Engineer in the 2nd respondent/Society in the year 1986. Due to administrative reasons, no service rules were framed in the society. Few colleagues whose concerns are to be akin of the petitioner have approached the Hon’ble High Court for framing service rules. Complying with the order of the Hon’ble High Court, the 1st respondent/Corporation framed the service rules in the year 2000. While so, the petitioner met with an accident on duty on 13.07.1993, resulting in injuries to his spinal chord and as a result he became paralyzed. Due to his physical disability he was not assigned mobile duty for certain period. Subsequently, in the light of his physical condition, he was not considered for promotion. As the promotion was denied on the ground of impairedness, the petitioner moved W.P.No.23273 of 2010 on 12.06.2002 and this Court disposed of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to make representations before the respondents to extend him the benefit in the nature of increments. On receipt of such representation from the petitioner, the respondents shall consider the matter particularly with reference to the practice prevailing in the other organizations and extend such benefit as they consider fit and proper. This Court also directed the respondents that the said exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of submission of representation by the petitioner. 3. Acting in accordance with the above order, the petitioner made several representations to the respondents. The 1st respondent/Corporation issued proceedings dated 08.12.2003, stating that the petitioner is neither eligible for promotion nor other benefits. 1st respondent/Corporation in its proceedings has emphasized that Hon’ble High Court has upheld the earlier decision of not giving promotion to the petitioner due to physical incapacity and has given a direction to consider to grant some other relief or special package with reference to practice prevailing in other organizations. After consulting similar organizations, they came to the conclusion that they do not have any such provision, or practice to extend special package and issued proceedings dated 08.12.2003. Hence, the petitioner filed WPMP.No.3860 of 2004 in W.P.No.2931 of 2004 for grant of promotion. The learned single Judge concurred with the proceedings dated 08.12.2003 and dismissed the writ petition. Hence this writ appeal. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances stated supra, we are clearly of the firm opinion that the learned single Judge has assigned valid reasons as to why he has declined to grant relief sought for and in that process has not committed any error. In view of the same, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed, but however without costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J __________________________​______ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J 5th December,2011 sp THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO.726 OF 2011 5th December, 2011 sp