IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO.640 OF 2010 DATED:01.2.2011 Between: Bammidi Rama Rao … Appellant And Acharya Nagarjuna University Nagarjuna Nagar, Guntur District Rep. by its Registrar and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO.640 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru) The writ petitioner – appellant having failed to get his selection/appointment as Assistant Professor in Law under the Orthopaedically Handicapped category, consequently writ petition which stands dismissed vide order dated 31-05-2010 after examining the stand disclosed by the respondent – University supported by the minutes of the Selection Committee, a perusal whereof reveals that the writ petitioner – appellant could not get selected because of his unsuitability for the post. Learned counsel for the appellant has made reference to certain judgments which in essence would command adherence to the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short, ‘the Act’). We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the statute aforementioned has to be adhered to, therefore we choose not to make any reference to the judgments he has cited. More so, fact remains that it is the enactment aforementioned under which the appellant has been accorded consideration under the category of disabled persons and was called to appear for interview although a single candidate, but the difficulty for the appellant is that he was not found suitable for the post. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant do not help him for, we find nothing in those judgments which would cast a duty upon the selection committee and the appointing authority to select a disabled person notwithstanding his unsuitability. In that view of the matter, interference is uncalled for. Dismissed. VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ 01-2-2011 B. Narsinga Rao